US v. Brandon Butler

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999621447-2]. Originating case number: 4:09-cr-00074-TLW-1,4:14-cv-00112-TLW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999703380]. Mailed to: Brandon Butler. [15-7086]

Appeal: 15-7086

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7086

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON EMANUEL BUTLER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:09-cr-00074-TLW-1; 4:14-cv-00112-TLW)

Submitted:

November 17, 2015

Decided:

November 20, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brandon Emanuel Butler, Appellant Pro Se.
Carrie Fisher
Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7086

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Brandon Emanuel Butler seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely
filed.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

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
Butler has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

Butler’s motion for 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

2

Appeal: 15-7086

before

Doc: 8

this

Filed: 11/20/2015

court

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3