Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07974/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07974-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Jermaine Wilson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7974

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERMAINE WILSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:03-cr-00321-AW-17; 8:09-cv-01340-AW)

Submitted: June 29, 2010 Decided: July 22, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaine Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7974 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/22/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jermaine Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2010) 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). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(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. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Wilson 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 

Appeal: 09-7974 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/22/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7974 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/22/2010 Pg: 3 of 3