United States v. Alrecka McDougald ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6527
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALRECKA EUGENE MCDOUGALD, a/k/a Alricka McDougald, a/k/a
Alrecka McDougald,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00110-TDS-1; 1:10-cv-00466-
TDS-WWD)
Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alrecka Eugene McDougald, Appellant Pro Se. Michael A.
DeFranco, Angela Hewlett Miller, Terri-Lei O’Malley, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alrecka Eugene McDougald seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2011) 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) (2006). 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)
(2006). 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
McDougald 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3