US v. James Ward

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00083-MR-DLH-1,1:15-cv-00161-MR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999828756]. Mailed to: Ward. [15-7755]

Appeal: 15-7755

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7755

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES WARD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00083-MR-DLH-1; 1:15-cv-00161-MR)

Submitted:

May 18, 2016

Decided:

May 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Richard Lee
Edwards, Assistant United States Attorneys, David A. Thorneloe,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7755

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James

Ward

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely filed.
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
Ward has not made the requisite showing.
certificate
dispense

of

with

appealability
oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny a

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 15-7755

Doc: 12

contentions

are

Filed: 05/20/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3