United States v. Martin ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6323
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ROLAND MARTIN, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-
    02-108; CA-04-3185)
    Submitted:   August 3, 2005                 Decided:   August 17, 2005
    Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Roland Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David Ira Salem, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Roland Martin, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
    the district court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000) motion as untimely filed.            This order is not appealable
    unless   a   circuit     justice   or   judge     issues   a   certificate      of
    appealability.      
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)    (2000);     see    Reid   v.
    Angelone, 
    369 F.3d 363
    , 368-69, 374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).                         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 the district
    court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and
    that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are
    also debatable or wrong.        See 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 (4th Cir. 2001).               We have independently
    reviewed the record and conclude that Martin 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: 19-1767

Filed Date: 8/17/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014