US v. Armstrong

Filing 920061103

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7246 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL NELSON ARMSTRONG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00017-H; 2:05-cv-00024-H) Submitted: October 23, 2006 Decided: November 3, 2006 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Nelson Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Nelson Armstrong seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion and denying his application for a certificate of appealability. not appealable The order dismissing Armstrong's 2255 motion is unless a circuit justice or judge issues a A certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000). certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this 28 U.S.C. standard that by any demonstrating reasonable jurists find assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Armstrong 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 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?