Court Opinion

ID: 1020382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:50:17.38249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:10.316674
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 06-6669

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

ANTHONY JARON RICHARDSON,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (3:01-cr-127-V; 3:06-cv-00083)

Submitted: August 31, 2006                 Decided: September 7, 2006

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Jaron Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. C. Nicks Williams,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            Anthony Jaron Richardson 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 Richardson 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

                                     - 2 -