United States of America v. Brandon Emanuel Butler

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7086
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON EMANUEL BUTLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:09-cr-00074-TLW-1; 4:14-cv-00112-TLW)
Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brandon Emanuel Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Fisher
Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Emanuel Butler seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely
filed. 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
Butler has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
Butler’s motion for 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --