Filed: Sep. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6823 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIMOTHY MAURICE BLANTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:11-cr-02161-TLW-3) Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6823 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIMOTHY MAURICE BLANTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:11-cr-02161-TLW-3) Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6823
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY MAURICE BLANTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:11-cr-02161-TLW-3)
Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Maurice Blanton, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William
Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Maurice Blanton seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his self-styled Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(d)(3) motion. Because Blanton’s motion was a successive and
unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(h); In re Vial,
115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997), the
district court was obligated to dismiss the motion, see United
States v. Winestock,
340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003), and the
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2012);
Reid v. Angelone,
369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
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) (2012). 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.
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Blanton 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
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3