US v. Saint Griffin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 5:05-cr-00281-F-1,5:12-cv-00380-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999117277]. Mailed to: Saint Griffin. [13-6134]

Appeal: 13-6134

Doc: 11

Filed: 05/29/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6134

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAINT GRIFFIN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00281-F-1; 5:12-cv-00380-F)

Submitted:

May 23, 2013

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

AGEE,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 29, 2013

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Saint Griffin, Appellant Pro Se.
Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6134

Doc: 11

Filed: 05/29/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Saint

Griffin

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2012) motion and its subsequent order denying reconsideration.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(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: 13-6134

Doc: 11

contentions

are

Filed: 05/29/2013

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3