US v. Gregory Grantham

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00103-JFM-3, 1:15-cv-03229-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000043380]. Mailed to: Gregory Grantham. [16-7143]

Appeal: 16-7143

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/16/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7143

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY E. GRANTHAM,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:12-cr-00103-JFM-3; 1:15-cv-03229-JFM)

Submitted:

March 14, 2017

Before FLOYD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

March 16, 2017

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory E. Grantham, Appellant Pro Se.
Rod J. Rosenstein,
United States Attorney, Kathleen O’Connell Gavin, Jefferson
McClure Gray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7143

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/16/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gregory E. Grantham 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
Grantham 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: 16-7143

Doc: 12

contentions

are

Filed: 03/16/2017

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3