US v. Brian Dinning

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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