United States v. John Curtiss, 4th Cir. (2016)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. John Curtiss, 4th Cir. (2016)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7508
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN C. CURTISS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:88-cr-00053-REP-RCY; 3:12-cv-00752-REP-RCY)
Submitted:
March 29, 2016
Decided:
March 31, 2016
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John C. Curtiss, Appellant Pro Se.
Stephen Wiley Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Jessica D. Aber, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John C. Curtiss seeks to appeal the district courts 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
(2012).
of
appealability.
28
U.S.C.
2253(c)(1)(B)
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).
relief
on
the
demonstrating
district
merits,
that
courts
debatable
or
When the district court denies
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
satisfies
jurists
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
Slack
this
standard
find
constitutional
529
U.S.
by
that
the
claims
is
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
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
debatable
Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Curtiss has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
We
legal
contentions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
