US v. Daniel Holmes, No. 13-7077 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7077 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANIEL HOLMES, a/k/a Dan, a/k/a Big Dan, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:04-cr-00429-SB-1; 9:12-cv-01311-SB) Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: December 9, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Eric John Klumb; Matthew J. Modica, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel orders denying 2013) motion Holmes relief and seeks on to 28 his denying appeal U.S.C.A. his motion the district § 2255 for court s (West Supp. reconsideration. Holmes appeal may not proceed unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). issue absent a of appealability. U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. 28 showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 Holmes 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