Court Opinion

ID: 215466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-04-26 18:35:37+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:01.819275
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 10-7723

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

LEROY ONON SMOOT,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:06-cr-01034-RBH-1; 4:10-cv-70236-RBH)

Submitted:   April 21, 2011                 Decided:   April 26, 2011

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leroy Onon Smoot, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Mikell Johnson,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Leroy Onon Smoot seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

2010) 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   Smoot    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