US v. Gregory Milton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:95-cr-70074-MFU-1,5:14-cv-80785-MFU-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999704640]. Mailed to: Gregory Milton. [15-6897]

Appeal: 15-6897

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6897

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY A. MILTON, a/k/a G,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge. (5:95-cr-70074-MFU-1; 5:14-cv-80785-MFU-RSB)

Submitted:

November 19, 2015

Decided:

November 23, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory A. Milton, Appellant Pro Se.
Anthony Paul
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Giorno,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6897

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gregory

A.

orders
motion

to

be

seeks

Milton’s

finding

Milton

most

an

to

appeal

recent

unauthorized,

the

28

district

U.S.C.

successive

court’s

§ 2255

§ 2255

(2012)

motion,

and

dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction, and denying Milton’s
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that order.
orders are
issues

not

a

appealable

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

unless
of

circuit

justice

appealability.

or

28

judge
U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

a

The

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
Milton has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

of

appealability
2

and

Accordingly, we deny

dismiss

the

appeal.

We

Appeal: 15-6897

Doc: 10

dispense

with

contentions

are

Filed: 11/23/2015

oral

argument

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3