US v. Daniel Bifield

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00430-CMC-1,3:14-cv-04679-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999804269]. Mailed to: Daniel Bifield. [16-6024]

Appeal: 16-6024

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6024

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DANIEL EUGENE BIFIELD, a/k/a Diamond Dan,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00430-CMC-1; 3:14-cv-04679-CMC)

Submitted:

April 21, 2016

Decided:

April 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Eugene Bifield, Appellant Pro Se. James Hunter May,
Stanley D. Ragsdale, Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6024

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Daniel Eugene Bifield 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
Bifield 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: 16-6024

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 04/26/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3