US v. John Robert Armstrong

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00276-PMD-1,2:14-cv-02423-PMD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999873511]. Mailed to: John Robert Armstrong FCI WILLIAMSBURG FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 340 Salters, SC 29590-0000. [15-7652]

Appeal: 15-7652

Doc: 8

Filed: 06/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7652

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN ROBERT ARMSTRONG,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:10-cr-00276-PMD-1; 2:14-cv-02423-PMD)

Submitted:

March 30, 2016

Before KEENAN
Circuit Judge.

and

WYNN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

June 29, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Robert Armstrong,
Assistant United States
for Appellee.

Appellant Pro Se.
Attorney, Charleston,

Sean Kittrell,
South Carolina,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7652

Doc: 8

Filed: 06/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John Robert Armstrong seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on 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
Armstrong 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: 15-7652

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 06/29/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3