US v. Eligia Martin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:06-cr-00049-jlk-mfu-3,4:10-cv-80233-jlk-mfu Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998453802] [10-6713]

US v. Eligia Martin

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6713 Document: 8

Date Filed: 10/27/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6713 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ELIGIA JUNIOR MARTIN, a/k/a Shorty Boy, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:06-cr-00049-jlk-mfu-3; 4:10-cv-80233-jlkmfu) Submitted: October 19, 2010 Decided: October 27, 2010

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eligia Junior Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Anthony Paul Giorno, Assistant United States Attorneys, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6713 Document: 8

Date Filed: 10/27/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Eligia court's order Junior Martin as seeks to his appeal 28 the district § 2255

dismissing

untimely

U.S.C.A.

(West Supp. 2010) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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) (2006). 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. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Martin 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

2

Case: 10-6713 Document: 8

Date Filed: 10/27/2010

Page: 3

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3