US v. Harry Charity, III
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Harry Charity, III. [16-7541]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
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)
March 14, 2017
Before FLOYD and
March 17, 2017
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
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
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
A certificate of appealability will not
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Charity has not made the requisite showing.
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Pg: 3 of 3
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?