US v. Christopher Green

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-cr-00013-D-1,5:14-cv-00389-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999658175]. Mailed to: Christopher Green. [15-6619]

Appeal: 15-6619

Doc: 12

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6619

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER KEON GREEN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00013-D-1; 5:14-cv-00389-D)

Submitted:

September 9, 2015

Decided:

September 11, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Keon Green, Appellant Pro Se.
Shailika S. Kotiya,
Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6619

Doc: 12

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

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

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

The orders are not

or

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Green has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 15-6619

Doc: 12

contentions

are

Filed: 09/11/2015

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

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

3