UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8076
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SAMUEL RODNEY HOLMES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District
Judge. (1:05-cr-01253-MBS-1; 1:10-cv-70305-MBS)
Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel Rodney Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Zalkin Hitt,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Rodney Holmes seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on 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 Holmes has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we
*
Holmes’ § 2255 motion was filed within one year after the
Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari review of his direct
appeal. United States v. Holmes, 339 F. App’x 334 (4th Cir.)
(No. 08-4916), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 816 (Dec. 7, 2009). It
is therefore timely filed. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(f)(1); Clay v.
(Continued)
2
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
United States, 537 U.S. 522, 527 (2003). Holmes fails, however,
to state a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional
right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
3