Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08171/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08171-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Patrick Stephen Walsh
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8171

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

PATRICK STEPHEN WALSH, a/k/a Patrick Steven Walsh,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:05-

cr-00001-RWT-1; 8:08-cv-02637-RWT) 

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: May 11, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Stephen Walsh, Appellant Pro Se. Chan Park, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8171 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/11/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Patrick Stephen Walsh seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on 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). 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, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

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

reviewed the record and conclude that Walsh 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: 09-8171 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/11/2010 Pg: 2 of 2