Opinion
No. 12-7333
01-16-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PAUL ANTHONY HOLMES, a/k/a Pauly, Defendant - Appellant.
Paul Anthony Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Mikell Johnson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:08-cr-00604-CMC-1; 3:11-cv-02269-CMC) Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Anthony Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Mikell Johnson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Paul Anthony Holmes seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 Holmes 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 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED