US v. Vernon Grimes, No. 13-118 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-118 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. VERNON GRIMES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00103-H-1; 5:12-cv-00466-H) Submitted: October 30, 2013 Decided: November 7, 2013 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vernon Grimes, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Fritz, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Vernon Grimes seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. justice or The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). of appealability. 28 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 Grimes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3