US v. Michael Harris

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999862879-2] Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00170-HEH-RCY-1,3:15-cv-00325-HEH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999976806]. Mailed to: Michael F. Harris. [16-6748]

Appeal: 16-6748

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6748

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL F. HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:12-cr-00170-HEH-RCY-1; 3:15-cv-00325-HEH)

Submitted:

November 22, 2016

Decided:

November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael F. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica D. Aber, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Michael Ronald Gill, Gurney Wingate
Grant, II, Laura Colombell Marshall, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6748

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael F. Harris 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
Harris has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

of

appealability,

deny

resettlement, and dismiss the appeal.

Accordingly, we deny
Harris’

motion

for

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 16-6748

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3