United States v. Montarius Murry ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7316
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MONTARIUS MURRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:11-cr-00073-RBS-FBS-1; 2:13-cv-00389-RBS;
2:13-cv-00225-RBS-DEM)
Submitted: January 6, 2014 Decided: January 14, 2014
Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Montarius Murry, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant
United States Attorney, V. Kathleen Dougherty, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Montarius Murry 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 Murry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny his motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3