US v. Bernard Bostic

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999303741-2]; denying for certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 4:08-cr-00060-TLW-1,4:13-cv-02134-TLW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999345824]. Mailed to: B. Bostic. [14-6224]

Appeal: 14-6224

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/29/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6224

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BERNARD BOSTIC,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:08-cr-00060-TLW-1; 4:13-cv-02134-TLW)

Submitted:

April 24, 2014

Decided:

April 29, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Bostic, Appellant Pro Se.
Robert Frank Daley, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6224

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/29/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Bernard Bostic seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
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) (2012).

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 Bostic has not made the requisite showing.
deny

Bostic’s

certificate
dispense

of

with

motion

for

appointment

appealability,
oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

of

the

Accordingly, we

counsel,
the

deny

appeal.

facts

and

a
We

legal

Appeal: 14-6224

Doc: 10

contentions

are

Filed: 04/29/2014

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

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

3