US v. Darryl Griffin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:98-cr-00009-H-4,4:12-cv-00153-H Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999051266]. Mailed to: Darryl Griffin. [12-8001]

Appeal: 12-8001

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/26/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8001

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DARRYL GRIFFIN, a/k/a Big D,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (4:98-cr-00009-H-4; 4:12-cv-00153-H)

Submitted:

February 21, 2013

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

DAVIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

February 26, 2013

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darryl Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Jane J.
Jackson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-8001

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/26/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Darryl Griffin seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)
motion.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000);

Cockrell,

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Griffin has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 12-8001

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 02/26/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3