Court Opinion

ID: 2720515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-08-25 19:00:34.117953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:38.993446
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 14-6490

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

EDWARD MACAULEY, a/k/a Cudjoe Opoku,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00199-JCC-1; 1:13-cv-01403-JCC)

Submitted:   August 21, 2014                 Decided:   August 25, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Macauley, Appellant Pro Se.     Karen Ledbetter Taylor,
Assistant United States Attorney, James Philip Gillis, Jenny R.
Hernandez, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Edward Macauley seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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) (2012).            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) (2012).               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 Macauley 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

                                           2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3