United States v. Irvin Hazel

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7119

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

IRVIN MAURICE HAZEL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:05-cr-00722-DCN-1; 2:12-cv-00403-DCN)

Submitted: September 11, 2012 Decided: September 17, 2012

Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Irvin Maurice Hazel, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Irvin Maurice Hazel seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely 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 Hazel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED