Court Opinion

ID: 804825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-07-20 18:49:14+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:13.797219
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 12-6340

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CRAIG WINKEY,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.    Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00207-CCB-1; 1:11-cv-02017-CCB)

Submitted:   July 17, 2012                 Decided:   July 20, 2012

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig Winkey, Appellant Pro Se.     Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Craig        Winkey   seeks    to    appeal    the    district       court’s

order denying relief on 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 Winkey 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