Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    United States v. Jamie Grooms, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Jamie Lee Grooms appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction and the denial of his motion to reconsider. The appellate court denied Grooms a certificate of appealability, finding he did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Jamie Grooms, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Jamie Lee Grooms appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction and the denial of his motion to reconsider. The appellate court denied Grooms a certificate of appealability, finding he did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-06-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6602

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Jamie Lee Grooms appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction and the denial of his motion to reconsider. The appellate court denied Grooms a certificate of appealability, finding he did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    10 views3 pages

    United States v. Jamie Grooms, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Jamie Lee Grooms appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction and the denial of his motion to reconsider. The appellate court denied Grooms a certificate of appealability, finding he did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-6602

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JAMIE LEE GROOMS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (4:07-cr-01038-RBH-1; 4:11-cv-02814-RBH)

    Submitted:

    June 14, 2012

    Decided: June 20, 2012

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jamie Lee Grooms, Appellant Pro Se.


    Robert Frank Daley, Jr.,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
    Carrie
    Fisher
    Sherard,
    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jamie Lee Grooms seeks to appeal the district courts
    orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp.
    2011) motion and denying his subsequent motion to reconsider.
    The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues

    certificate

    2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
    issue

    absent

    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

    When the

    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


    this

    standard

    by

    demonstrating

    that

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find that the district courts 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 Grooms has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.


    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like