Reginald Mimms v. J. Grondolsky, No. 12-6947 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6947 REGINALD MIMMS, a/k/a Gerald King, Petitioner - Appellant, v. J. GRONDOLSKY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:12-cv-00125-JCT-RSB; 7:00-cr-00022-JCT-RSB1; 7:99-cr-00048-JCT-RSB-1) Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Mimms, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Reginald Mimms seeks to appeal the district court s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion and denying it for failure to first obtain authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (West 2000 & Supp. 2012). 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. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must 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 Mimms has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
