From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Hannigan

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Mar 14, 2016
638 F. App'x 234 (4th Cir. 2016)

Opinion

No. 15-7518

03-14-2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER HANNIGAN, Defendant - Appellant.

Christopher Hannigan, Appellant Pro Se. Joe Exum, Jr., Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (7:09-cr-00133-D-1; 7:14-cv-00122-D) Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Hannigan, Appellant Pro Se. Joe Exum, Jr., Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Christopher Hannigan seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hannigan 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. Hannigan

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Mar 14, 2016
638 F. App'x 234 (4th Cir. 2016)
Case details for

United States v. Hannigan

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER HANNIGAN…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 14, 2016

Citations

638 F. App'x 234 (4th Cir. 2016)

Citing Cases

Wright v. United States

Timeliness under § 2255(f) is assessed on a "claim-by-claim basis." Capozzi v. United States, 768 F.3d 32, 33…

Williams v. United States

Williams did not appeal, and Williams's conviction became final at the latest on April 2,2021. See 28 U.S.C.…