United States v. Littlejohn , 157 F. App'x 596 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7145
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    THOMAS FLOYD LITTLEJOHN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.    Lacy H. Thornburg,
    District Judge. (CR-90-231-5-1; CA-05-249-1)
    Submitted:   November 22, 2005            Decided:   December 6, 2005
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas Floyd Littlejohn, Appellant Pro Se.    Amy Elizabeth Ray,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas Floyd Littlejohn seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order dismissing as untimely his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000)
    motion.    
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
    (d)(1)      (2000).      The   order   is   not
    appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
    of appealability.      
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c) (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     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
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).            We have independently reviewed the
    record and conclude that Littlejohn has not demonstrated error in
    the district court’s procedural ruling.                  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: 05-7145

Citation Numbers: 157 F. App'x 596

Judges: Motz, Traxler, Gregory

Filed Date: 12/6/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024