US v. Daniel Holme

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:04-cr-00429-SB-1,9:12-cv-01311-SB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999254985]. Mailed to: Daniel Holmes. [13-7077]

Appeal: 13-7077

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/09/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7077

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL HOLMES, a/k/a Dan, a/k/a Big Dan,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (9:04-cr-00429-SB-1; 9:12-cv-01311-SB)

Submitted:

November 21, 2013

Decided:

December 9, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Eric John Klumb;
Matthew
J.
Modica,
Assistant
United
States
Attorneys,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7077

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/09/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Daniel
orders denying
2013)

motion

Holmes
relief

and

seeks
on

to
28

his

denying

appeal

U.S.C.A.

his

motion

the

district

§ 2255

for

court’s

(West

Supp.

reconsideration.

Holmes’ appeal may not proceed 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 Holmes has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 13-7077

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 12/09/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3