Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06175/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06175-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney Maurice Saunders
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6175

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff – Appellee, 

v.

RODNEY MAURICE SAUNDERS, 

Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:04-cr-00406-WDQ-1; 1:08-cv-00874-WDQ) 

Submitted: May 3, 2010 Decided: June 4, 2010

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

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Rodney Maurice Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Paul M. Tiao, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-6175 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/04/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Rodney Maurice Saunders 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 Saunders 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: 09-6175 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/04/2010 Pg: 2 of 2