US v. Victor Hargrave

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:95-cr-00186-JAB-1,1:12-cv-00989-JAB-JEP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999265993]. Mailed to: Hargrave. [13-7382]

Appeal: 13-7382

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/24/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7382

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
VICTOR WILLIAM HARGRAVE, a/k/a David Lee Hargrave
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (4:95-cr-00186-JAB-1; 1:12-cv-00989-JAB-JEP)

Submitted:

December 19, 2013

Decided:

December 24, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor William Hargrave, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael
Hamilton,
Angela
Hewlett
Miller,
Assistant
United
States
Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7382

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/24/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Victor William Hargrave seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

adopting

the

report

and

recommendation

of

the

magistrate judge, construing Hargrave’s coram nobis petition as
a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion, and dismissing it
as successive.
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 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 Hargrave 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: 13-7382

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 12/24/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3