US v. Brandon Holman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00428-CCE-1,1:16-cv-00723-CCE-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000091390]. Mailed to: Brandon Holman. [17-6319]

Appeal: 17-6319

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/31/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6319

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON TREMAYNE HOLMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00428-CCE-1; 1:16-cv00723-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brandon Tremayne Holman, Appellant Pro Se. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6319

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/31/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Brandon Tremayne Holman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and its order denying his subsequent motion
for a certificate of appealability. When the United States or its officer or agency is a
party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the
district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district
court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil
case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order denying Holman’s § 2255 motion was entered on the
docket on December 8, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on March 7, 2017. *
Because Holman failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal of the district court’s December 8
order.
While Holman’s appeal is timely as to the district court’s order denying his motion
for a certificate of appealability, the order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

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). When the district court denies
*

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of
appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for
mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

2

Appeal: 17-6319

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/31/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

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 (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 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 Holman has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3