US v. Quindelle Ru

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 2:06-cr-01290-DCN-1,2:10-cv-70239-DCN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998549142]. Mailed to: Quindelle Jay Russ. [11-6060]

US v. Quindelle Ru

Doc. 0

Case: 11-6060

Document: 12

Date Filed: 03/21/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6060

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. QUINDELLE JAY RUSS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (2:06-cr-01290-DCN-1; 2:10-cv-70239-DCN)

Submitted:

March 15, 2011

Decided:

March 21, 2011

Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.

WYNN,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quindelle Jay Russ, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 11-6060

Document: 12

Date Filed: 03/21/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Quindelle court's order Jay Russ as seeks untimely to his appeal 28 the district § 2255

dismissing

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. By failing to challenge the Slack, district

court's dispositive procedural ruling in his informal brief on appeal, showing. we conclude that Russ has not made the requisite

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability We dispense with oral argument because

and dismiss the appeal.

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

2

Case: 11-6060

Document: 12

Date Filed: 03/21/2011

Page: 3

materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process. DISMISSED

3