United States v. Kara McIntosh

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6682
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KARA MCINTOSH,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00533-JFM-1; 1:11-cv-00509-JFM)
Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 14, 2011
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kara McIntosh, Appellant Pro Se. Clinton Jacob Fuchs, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kara McIntosh seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely her 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).
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 McIntosh has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability, deny McIntosh’s motion for release pending
appeal, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
2
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3