Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06034/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06034-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Corey E. White
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6034

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

COREY E. WHITE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District 

Judge. (2:07-cr-00150-RBS-FBS-1; 2:09-cv-00537-RBS)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 6, 2010

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey E. White, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6034 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/06/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Corey E. White 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 White 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: 10-6034 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/06/2010 Pg: 2 of 2