Court Opinion

ID: 1018414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:19:43.063275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:11.500497
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 05-6830

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

ISADORE GARTRELL,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (CR-89-305; CA-03-1562-A)

Submitted: January 26, 2006                 Decided:   January 30, 2006

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isadore Gartrell, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

          Isadore Gartrell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability.        28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000).   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) (2000).    A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating   that   reasonable   jurists   would   find    that   any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable.    Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).     We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Gartrell has not made the

requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Gartrell’s motion for 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 before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                - 2 -