United States v. Jimmie Harris ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7410
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JIMMIE HARRIS, a/k/a, Black
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (2:12-cr-00232-MBS-19; 2:16-
cv-02603-MBS)
Submitted: March 31, 2020 Decided: April 14, 2020
Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmie Harris, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmie Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief
on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.
See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Harris’ motion to appoint counsel, 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