US v. Darrell Holme
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:09-cr-00085-MSD-FBS-1,4:13-cv-00113-MSD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999607417]. Mailed to: Darrell Holmes. [15-6300]
Appeal: 15-6300
Doc: 8
Filed: 06/23/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6300
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRELL WALTER HOLMES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:09-cr-00085-MSD-FBS-1; 4:13-cv-00113-MSD)
Submitted:
June 18, 2015
Decided:
June 23, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrell Walter Holmes, Appellant Pro Se.
Lisa Rae McKeel,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-6300
Doc: 8
Filed: 06/23/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Walter Holmes seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The
order is 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.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).
28 U.S.C.
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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
argument would not aid the decisional process.
2
this
court
and
Appeal: 15-6300
Doc: 8
Filed: 06/23/2015
Pg: 3 of 3
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?