US v. Craig Maurice Harris, No. 17-6615 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6615 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CRAIG MAURICE HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00120-D-1) Submitted: October 31, 2017 Decided: November 7, 2017 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig Maurice Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Donald Russell Pender, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Craig Maurice Harris appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion and seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. * Harris makes no argument as to the denial of relief on his § 3582(c)(2) motion. Therefore, Harris has waived appellate review of that order. See United States v. Winfield, 665 F.3d 107, 111 n.4 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating argument not raised in opening brief considered waived). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying § 3582(c)(2) relief. United States v. Harris, No. 5:12-cr00120-D-1 (E.D.N.C. May 9, 2017). The district court’s order dismissing Harris’ § 2255 motion 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 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal with respect to the § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the * Because both orders were entered on the same day and Harris’ notice of appeal does not specify which order he seeks to appeal, we look to the arguments raised in his informal brief. 2 facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
