Court Opinion

ID: 809059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-09-24 18:45:31+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:23.095083
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 12-7193

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

WILLIE ORLANDO MCKINNON,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.    Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:08-cr-00049-CCB-1)

Submitted:   September 12, 2012          Decided:   September 24, 2012

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Orlando McKinnon, Appellant Pro Se.     Michael Clayton
Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Willie Orlando McKinnon 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 McKinnon has not made the requisite showing.                        Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                     We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                          2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED

                                  3