United States v. Ancrum , 274 F. App'x 335 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6077
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    KHARY JAMAL ANCRUM,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.    Samuel G. Wilson, District
    Judge. (5:02-cr-30020-SGW-2; 7:07-cv-00523-SGW-MFU)
    Submitted:   April 17, 2008                 Decided: April 23, 2008
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Khary Jamal Ancrum, Appellant Pro Se. William Frederick Gould,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Khary Jamal Ancrum 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 procedural 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 Ancrum 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 before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-6077

Citation Numbers: 274 F. App'x 335

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Michael

Filed Date: 4/23/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024