From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Asar

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 1, 2013
516 F. App'x 256 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 12-7925

04-01-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DIFANKH ASAR, a/k/a James Walter Gist, Defendant - Appellant.

Difankh Asar, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:10-cr-00429-GRA-1; 7:12-cv-01650-GRA) Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Difankh Asar, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Difankh Asar 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 Asar 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


Summaries of

United States v. Asar

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 1, 2013
516 F. App'x 256 (4th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Asar

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DIFANKH ASAR, a/k/a…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 1, 2013

Citations

516 F. App'x 256 (4th Cir. 2013)

Citing Cases

Asar v. Travis

The petitioner's appeal of his § 2255 motion was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on April 1, 2013. United…

Asar v. Barnes

The petitioner's appeal of his § 2255 motion was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on April 1, 2013, and his…