Case ID: f-appx_673/html/0312-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Isaac PARKER, a/k/a David Green, a/k/a David Smith, a/k/a Jay Smith, a/k/a David Isaac Parker-El, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-7039
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 5, 2017
    Decided: January 17, 2017
    
      David Isaac Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland; Paul Nitze, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Rachel E. Timm, Office of the United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Isaac Parker seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), motion as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Parker 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED