US v. Brandon Dupree James

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to expand certificate of appealability [1000072157-2] Originating case number: 0:11-cr-02327-MBS-1,0:14-cv-00948-MBS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000271077]. Mailed to: Brandon Dupree James UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY HAZELTON P. O. Box 2000 Bruceton Mills, WV 26525-2000. [17-6522]

Appeal: 17-6522

Doc: 19

Filed: 04/05/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6522

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON DUPREE JAMES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (0:11-cr-02327-MBS-1; 0:14-cv00948-MBS)

Submitted: March 30, 2018

Decided: April 5, 2018

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brandon Dupree James, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6522

Doc: 19

Filed: 04/05/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Brandon Dupree James 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 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
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 James has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We deny the request to expand the certificate of appealability and 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

2