US v. Brian Dinning


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion for leave to file oversized brief granted [999940104-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) denied [999940097-2]; Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) denied [999935866-2] Originating case number: 2:12-cr-00084-RAJ-LRL-1, 2:15-cv-00420-RAJ. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000030938]. Mailed to: Brian Dinning. [16-7219, 16-7220]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7219 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/27/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7219 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. BRIAN RAY DINNING, Defendant - Appellant. No. 16-7220 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. BRIAN RAY DINNING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:12-cr-00084-RAJ-LRL-1, 2:15-cv-00420-RAJ; 2:12-cr-00140-RAJ-LRL-1, 2:15-cv-00421-RAJ) Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 27, 2017 Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Appeal: 16-7219 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/27/2017 Pg: 2 of 4 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Ray Dinning, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Westley Haynie, Assistant United States Attorney, Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-7219 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/27/2017 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: Brian Ray Dinning seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief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 Dinning has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Dinning’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant Dinning’s motion to file an oversized informal brief, and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 3 the facts and We legal Appeal: 16-7219 Doc: 16 contentions are Filed: 02/27/2017 adequately Pg: 4 of 4 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?