US v. Roger D. Burre
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:03-cr-00024-1,2:10-cv-00034 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998458723] [10-6927]
US v. Roger D. Burre
Doc. 0
Case: 10-6927 Document: 11
Date Filed: 11/03/2010
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6927 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROGER D. BURRESS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:03-cr-00024-1; 2:10-cv-00034) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: November 3, 2010
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Joseph Curtis, Ashland, Kentucky; Sebastian M. Joy, CAUMMISAR LAW OFFICE, Grayson, Kentucky, for Appellant. Joshua Clarke Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Dockets.Justia.com
Case: 10-6927 Document: 11
Date Filed: 11/03/2010
Page: 2
PER CURIAM: Roger D. Burress seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a
A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a
substantial
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 Burress 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: 10-6927 Document: 11
Date Filed: 11/03/2010
Page: 3
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process. DISMISSED
3
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?