US v. Wardrick
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT JUNIOR WARDRICK, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:01-cr00217; 1:07-cv-00400-AMD)
Submitted: June 15, 2007
June 22, 2007
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Junior Wardrick, Appellant Pro Se. Debra L. Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Robert Junior Wardrick seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, because Wardrick had not received authorization from this court, and denying reconsideration. unless a circuit justice or The orders are not appealable issues a certificate of
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 that any 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. Slack v. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d We have independently reviewed the
676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).
record and conclude Wardrick 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?