US v. Giraud Hope

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00002-MOC-1,3:15-cv-00408-MOC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999829876]. Mailed to: Giraud Hope 10502 Atkins Ridge Drive Charlotte, NC 28213. [16-6040]

Appeal: 16-6040

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6040

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GIRAUD HOPE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00002-MOC-1; 3:15-cv-00408-MOC)

Submitted:

May 18, 2016

Decided:

May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Giraud Hope, Appellant Pro Se.
Kelli Hamby Ferry, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth
Ray,
Asheville,
North
Carolina,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6040

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Giraud

Hope

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

merits,

demonstrating
district

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
Hope has not made the requisite showing.
certificate
dispense

of

with

contentions

are

appealability
oral

argument

adequately

and

Accordingly, we deny a

dismiss

because

presented

in

the
the

the

appeal.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2