US v. John C. Curtiss

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:88-cr-00053-REP-RCY,3:12-cv-00752-REP-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999785683]. Mailed to: Curtiss. [15-7508]

Appeal: 15-7508

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7508

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN C. CURTISS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:88-cr-00053-REP-RCY; 3:12-cv-00752-REP-RCY)

Submitted:

March 29, 2016

Decided:

March 31, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John C. Curtiss, Appellant Pro Se.
Stephen Wiley Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Jessica D. Aber, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7508

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John C. Curtiss seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2012).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

A certificate of 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
Curtiss has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 15-7508

Doc: 13

contentions

are

Filed: 03/31/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

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

3