Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07052/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07052-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Paul Czinski
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7052

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DANIEL PAUL CZINSKI, a/k/a Chino, a/k/a Daniel

Paul Lzinski,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:03-cr-00412; 1:06-cv-01253)

Submitted: January 31, 2008 Decided: February 22, 2008

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Paul Czinski, Appellant Pro Se. Patrick Friel Stokes,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7052 Doc: 18 Filed: 02/22/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Paul Czinski seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). 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) (2000). 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 Czinski has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Czinski’s motion

for 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: 07-7052 Doc: 18 Filed: 02/22/2008 Pg: 2 of 2