United States v. Jimmy Nance

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Jimmy Nance, 507 F. App'x 320 (4th Cir. 2013)

United States v. Jimmy Nance

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7733

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JIMMY LAWRENCE NANCE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:92-cr-00135-JCT-RSB-1; 7:12-cv-80519-JCT- RSB; 7:11-cv-80382-JCT-RSB)

Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: January 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Lawrence Nance, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Lawrence Nance seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as successive his

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 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) (2006). 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)

(2006). 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 Nance 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

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished