Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07557/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07557-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frankie Sanchez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7557

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FRANKIE SANCHEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

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

(1:92-cr-00301-WDQ; 1:07-cv-01327-WDQ)

Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 21, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frankie Sanchez, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7557 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/21/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

 Frankie Sanchez 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 Sanchez 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: 07-7557 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/21/2008 Pg: 2 of 2