Opinion
No. 12-7989
05-02-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIMOTHY WAYNE EDDINGTON, Defendant - Appellant.
Timothy Wayne Eddington, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Claude Jendron, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (0:07-cr-01149-CMC-1; 0:11-cv-02859-CMC) Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Wayne Eddington, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Claude Jendron, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Timothy Wayne Eddington seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on 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 Eddington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Eddington's motion to amend his informal brief, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, deny his motion for permission to file a successive § 2255 motion, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED