United States v. John McLean , 697 F. App'x 259 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6308
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JOHN R. MCLEAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00531-JFM-1; 1:16-cv-03626-JFM)
    Submitted: September 26, 2017                               Decided: September 28, 2017
    Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    John R. McLean, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    John R. McLean 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 McLean 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 this court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-6308

Citation Numbers: 697 F. App'x 259

Judges: Niemeyer, Traxler, Hamilton

Filed Date: 9/28/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024