US v. Christopher Hannigan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:09-cr-00133-D-1,7:14-cv-00122-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999773499]. Mailed to: Christopher Hannigan FCI PETERSBURG LOW SATELLITE CAMP P. O. Box 1000 Petersburg, VA 23804-0000 Joe Exum, Jr.. [15-7518]

Appeal: 15-7518

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/14/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7518

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER HANNIGAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (7:09-cr-00133-D-1; 7:14-cv-00122-D)

Submitted:

February 17, 2016

Decided:

March 14, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Hannigan, Appellant Pro Se. Joe Exum, Jr., Stephen
Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan
Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7518

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/14/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Christopher Hannigan seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

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
Hannigan 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: 15-7518

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 03/14/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3