Court Opinion

ID: 148004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-06-07 18:53:08+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:04.561817
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 09-8113

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

CHRISTOPHER FERGUSON, a/k/a Mark, a/k/a Mark Thompson,

                Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:03-cr-00345-LDW-2; 1:09-cv-00686-CMH)

Submitted:   June 1, 2010                  Decided:   June 7, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Ferguson, Appellant Pro Se.    Daniel Joseph Grooms,
III, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Christopher      Ferguson     seeks      to    appeal       the   district

court’s   order     dismissing   as    untimely      his    28   U.S.C.A.       §   2255

(West Supp. 2009) motion.            The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 Ferguson 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   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3