US v. Terry Mitchell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cr-00501-JFA-21,3:13-cv-01395-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999778107]. Mailed to: Terry Mitchell. [15-7645]

Appeal: 15-7645

Doc: 8

Filed: 03/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7645

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TERRY WAINWRIGHT MITCHELL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00501-JFA-21; 3:13-cv-01395-JFA)

Submitted:

March 17, 2016

Decided:

March 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Wainwright Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.
Stacey Denise
Haynes, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7645

Doc: 8

Filed: 03/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Terry

Wainwright

Mitchell

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

U.S.C.

§ 2255

appealability.

28

(2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

district

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
certificate

his

the

motion.

a

on

appeal

order

issues

relief

to

court’s

judge

denying

seeks

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
Mitchell 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: 15-7645

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 03/21/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

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

3