Court Opinion

ID: 151343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-07-22 17:54:54+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:24.017708
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 09-7974

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JERMAINE WILSON,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.      Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:03-cr-00321-AW-17; 8:09-cv-01340-AW)

Submitted:   June 29, 2010                 Decided:   July 22, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaine Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Jermaine Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying 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 Wilson 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