US v. Harry Charity, III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00175-CMH-1,1:13-cv-00736-CMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000044041]. Mailed to: Harry Charity, III. [16-7541]

Appeal: 16-7541

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/17/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7541

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
HARRY CHARITY, III,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00175-CMH-1; 1:13-cv-00736-CMH)

Submitted:

March 14, 2017

Before FLOYD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

March 17, 2017

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry Charity, III, Appellant Pro Se. David Benjamin Joyce,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY; Lisa Lee Owings, FEDERAL
ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7541

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/17/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Harry Charity, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

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
Charity 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: 16-7541

Doc: 10

contentions

are

Filed: 03/17/2017

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3