US v. Darrell F. Gist

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion for leave to file additional argument [999147453-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999124311-2], denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999095823-2] Originating case number: 4:02-cr-00207-TLW-1,4:13-cv-00159-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999225463]. Mailed to: Darrell Gist. [13-6667]

Appeal: 13-6667

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/24/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6667

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DARRELL F. GIST,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:02-cr-00207-TLW-1; 4:13-cv-00159-TLW)

Submitted:

October 22, 2013

Decided:

October 24, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell F. Gist, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6667

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/24/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Darrell F. Gist seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion
as

untimely.

justice

or

The

judge

order

issues

is
a

not

appealable

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

of

unless

a

circuit

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 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 Gist has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny Gist’s motions for a certificate of appealability, grant
his motion to file additional argument, and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 13-6667

Doc: 13

contentions

are

Filed: 10/24/2013

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3