US v. Christopher Mill

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:12-cr-00013-GEC-RSB-1,7:15-cv-80834-GEC-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999990717].. [16-7053]

Appeal: 16-7053

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7053

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER JAMES MILLS, a/k/a Christopher James Nichols,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge.
(7:12-cr-00013-GEC-RSB-1; 7:15-cv-80834-GECRSB)

Submitted:

December 15, 2016

Decided:

December 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvin LeRoye Hill, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant.
Ronald
Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7053

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Christopher

James

appeal

28

U.S.C.

district

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

§ 2255

appealability.

28

(2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

his

the

motion.

a

on

to

order

issues

relief

seeks

court’s

judge

denying

Mills

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
Mills 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: 16-7053

Doc: 10

contentions

are

Filed: 12/20/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

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

3