Court Opinion

ID: 4241916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-02 20:00:23.206426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:05.507933
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-7183

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

ROWN WASHINGTON, a/k/a Folly,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (5:11-cr-00636-MBS-1; 5:17-
cv-01318-MBS)

Submitted: January 30, 2018                                       Decided: February 2, 2018

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rown Washington, Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Rown Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Washington has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Washington’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 this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED

                                             2