US v. Joseph Smith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cr-00199-HEH-1,3:13-cv-00067-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court. [999838697]. Mailed to: Joseph Thomas Smith. [16-6092]

Appeal: 16-6092

Doc: 12

Filed: 06/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6092

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH THOMAS SMITH, a/k/a Joseph Smith,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:10-cr-00199-HEH-1; 3:13-cv-00067-HEH)

Submitted:

May 26, 2016

Decided:

June 1, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Thomas Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Michael Calvin Moore,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6092

Doc: 12

Filed: 06/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Joseph Thomas Smith 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 of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).

28 U.S.C.

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 (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 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
Smith has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2