US v. Curtis Richardson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [1000224425-2], updating certificate of appealability status. Originating case number: 4:15-cr-00492-RBH-1,4:16-cv-02981-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000302205]. Mailed to: Curtis Richardson. [17-7482]

Appeal: 17-7482

Doc: 13

Filed: 05/29/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7482

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CURTIS RICHARDSON, a/k/a Curtis D. Richardson, a/k/a Curtis Dale Richardson,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:15-cr-00492-RBH-1; 4:16-cv-02981-RBH)

Submitted: April 24, 2018

Decided: May 29, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Dolan Taylor, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-7482

Doc: 13

Filed: 05/29/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Curtis Richardson 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 Richardson has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Richardson’s motion for bail or release
pending appeal, 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

2