United States of America v. Irvin Maurice Hazel

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7119
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IRVIN MAURICE HAZEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:05-cr-00722-DCN-1; 2:12-cv-00403-DCN)
Submitted: September 11, 2012 Decided: September 17, 2012
Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Irvin Maurice Hazel, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Irvin Maurice Hazel seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2012) motion. 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.” 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 Hazel 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --