US v. Darrell Cunningham
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 6:13-cr-00013-TMC-2,6:14-cv-03539-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999628994]. Mailed to: Darrell Anthony Cunningham. [15-6356]
Appeal: 15-6356
Doc: 9
Filed: 07/28/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6356
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRELL ANTHONY CUNNINGHAM, a/k/a DC,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:13-cr-00013-TMC-2; 6:14-cv-03539-TMC)
Submitted:
July 15, 2015
Decided:
July 28, 2015
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrell Anthony Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se.
Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Maxwell B.
Greenville,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-6356
Doc: 9
Filed: 07/28/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Darrell
Anthony
Cunningham
seeks
relief
his
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
certificate
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue
absent
“a
of
§ 2255
appealability.
(2012)
28
U.S.C.
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.”
U.S.C.
district
motion.
a
28
the
order
issues
on
appeal
court’s
judge
denying
to
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
Cunningham has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
deny Cunningham’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
facts
and
legal
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
2
adequately
presented
in
the
Appeal: 15-6356
Doc: 9
materials
before
Filed: 07/28/2015
this
court
Pg: 3 of 3
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?