UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7989
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY WAYNE EDDINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (0:07-cr-01149-CMC-1; 0:11-cv-02859-CMC)
Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: May 2, 2013
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Wayne Eddington, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Claude
Jendron, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Wayne Eddington seeks to appeal the district
court’s order 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 Eddington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
although we grant Eddington’s motion to amend his informal
brief, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability,
deny his motion for permission to file a successive § 2255
motion, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument
2
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3