From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Fripp

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Nov 22, 2011
455 F. App'x 358 (4th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 11-6620

11-22-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GEROME FRIPP, Defendant - Appellant.

Gerome Fripp, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Zalkin Hitt, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:08-cr-00275-RBH-1; 4:10-cv-70293-RBH)

Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerome Fripp, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Zalkin Hitt, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Gerome Fripp seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 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 Fripp has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED


Summaries of

U.S. v. Fripp

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Nov 22, 2011
455 F. App'x 358 (4th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

U.S. v. Fripp

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GEROME FRIPP…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Nov 22, 2011

Citations

455 F. App'x 358 (4th Cir. 2011)

Citing Cases

Fripp v. United States

In 2010, Petitioner filed a pro se § 2255 motion, which this Court dismissed with prejudice in 2011. See ECF…