US v. Silas King
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 3:01-cr-00210-MR-3, 3:13-cv-00286-MR. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999557887].. [14-7701]
Appeal: 14-7701
Doc: 6
Filed: 04/02/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7701
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SILAS THOMAS KING,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00210-MR-3; 3:13-cv-00286-MR)
Submitted:
March 26, 2015
Decided:
April 2, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Silas Thomas King, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-7701
Doc: 6
Filed: 04/02/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Silas
Thomas
King
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
King has not made the requisite showing.
certificate
dispense
of
with
appealability
oral
argument
and
dismiss
because
2
Accordingly, we deny a
the
the
appeal.
facts
and
We
legal
Appeal: 14-7701
Doc: 6
contentions
Filed: 04/02/2015
are
adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?