Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06071/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06071-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shawn Rhondu Smithwick
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6071

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHAWN RHONDU SMITHWICK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:06-cr-00121-F-1; 5:08-cv-00538-F)

Submitted: April 13, 2010 Decided: May 12, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawn Rhondu Smithwick, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, 

Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6071 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/12/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Shawn Rhondu Smithwick seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smithwick

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

Appeal: 10-6071 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/12/2010 Pg: 2 of 2