Court Opinion

ID: 903109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-06-18 18:48:33.709411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:49.319423
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 13-6687

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ERIC RICHARDSON, a/k/a Father,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00288-WDQ-28; 1:12-cv-03753-WDQ)

Submitted:   June 13, 2013                 Decided:   June 18, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.   Lauren Alise Seldomridge,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Eric Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

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) (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) (2006).              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      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

                                            2
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED

                                     3