US v. Sean Mim

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999706459-2] Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00150-REP-RCY-1,3:13-cv-00359-REP-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999765094]. Mailed to: Sean Mims. [15-7697]

Appeal: 15-7697

Doc: 8

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7697

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SEAN AARON MIMS, a/k/a Sean Aaron Mimms,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge.
(3:07-cr-00150-REP-RCY-1; 3:13-cv-00359-REPRCY)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

March 1, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean Aaron Mims, Appellant Pro Se.
Special
Assistant
United
States
Assistant United States Attorney,
Appellee.

Samuel Eugene Fishel, IV,
Attorney,
Elizabeth
Wu,
Richmond, Virginia, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7697

Doc: 8

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Sean Aaron Mims 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.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

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
Mims 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: 15-7697

Doc: 8

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3