US v. Daniel Woods

Filing 920090707

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8299

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANIEL WOODS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00025-JPB-JES-1; 3:07-cv-00155JPB-JES)

Submitted:

June 24, 2009

Decided:

July 7, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Daniel Woods seeks to appeal the district court's

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion as untimely. denying Woods also seeks to appeal the district court's order his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for

reconsideration. justice or judge

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will showing of the denial (2006). of a A that the or

substantial 28

constitutional prisoner reasonable

right." this would by

U.S.C. standard

§ 2253(c)(2) by any

satisfies jurists

demonstrating assessment is of

find the

that

constitutional

claims

district

court

debatable

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 Woods has not made the requisite showing. motion appeal. legal for a certificate of Accordingly, we deny Woods's appealability and dismiss the

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are adequately presented in the materials

contentions

2

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3