US v. Justin Crenshaw

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 7:09-cr-00054-H-1,7:13-cv-00020-H. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999636398]. Mailed to: Justin Crenshaw. [14-6696]

Appeal: 14-6696

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/07/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6696

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JUSTIN CRENSHAW,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (7:09-cr-00054-H-1; 7:13-cv-00020-H)

Submitted:

July 23, 2015

Decided:

August 7, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Justin Crenshaw, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Michael Kellhofer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer E. Wells, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6696

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/07/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Justin Crenshaw seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
denying reconsideration.

The orders are not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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
Crenshaw 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: 14-6696

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 08/07/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3