US v. Tony Avant

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 5:02-cr-00133-H-1,5:12-cv-00026-H Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999092502].. [13-6113]

Appeal: 13-6113

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6113

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TONY GLENN AVANT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:02-cr-00133-H-1; 5:12-cv-00026-H)

Submitted:

April 18, 2013

Decided:

April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Glenn Avant, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6113

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Tony Glenn Avant seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2012) motion.
justice

or

The order is not appealable unless a circuit

judge

issues

a

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

of

appealability.

28

A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484-85 (2000).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Avant has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2