US v. Ernest Darcus, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion. A certificate of appealability is denied. Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00418-REP-RCY-1, 3:12-cv-00840-REP-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999939750]. Mailed to: Ernest Carl Darcus, Jr. [15-7886]

Appeal: 15-7886

Doc: 22

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7886

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ERNEST CARL DARCUS, JR.,
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-00418-REP-RCY-1; 3:12-cv-00840-REPRCY)

Submitted:

September 29, 2016

Decided:

October 3, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest
Carl
Darcus,
Jr.,
Appellant
Pro
Se.
Angela
Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7886

Doc: 22

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ernest

Carl

Darcus,

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

U.S.C.

district

§ 2255

appealability.

28

(2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

the

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
certificate

his

appeal

motion.

a

on

to

order

issues

relief

seeks

court’s

judge

denying

Jr.,

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
Darcus has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 15-7886

Doc: 22

contentions

are

Filed: 10/03/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3