US v. Travis Grady

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999685659-2]; denying updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00002-GEC-1,5:14-cv-80780-GEC-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999723391]. Mailed to: T. Grady. [15-7575]

Appeal: 15-7575

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7575

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TRAVIS NICODEMUS GRADY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00002-GEC-1; 5:14-cv-80780-GEC-RSB)

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided:

December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis Nicodemus Grady, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Marie Harrigan
Kulpa,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Charlottesville,
Virginia; Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney,
Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7575

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Travis Nicodemus Grady 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

§ 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
Grady has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis,

and

dismiss

the

appeal.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 15-7575

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3