US v. Mario Pettiford

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998544373-2] Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00005-WO-1,1:10-cv-00147-WO-PTS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998614922].. [11-6071]

Appeal: 11-6071

Document: 12

Date Filed: 06/20/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6071

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MARIO FITZGERALD PETTIFORD,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00005-WO-1; 1:10-cv-00147-WO-PTS)

Submitted:

June 16, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.

GREGORY,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

June 20, 2011

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mario Fitzgerald Pettiford, Appellant Pro Se.
Angela Hewlett
Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6071

Document: 12

Date Filed: 06/20/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mario
district

court’s

Fitzgerald
order

Pettiford

accepting

seeks

the

to

appeal

recommendation

of

the
the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(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)(B)

(2006).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

both

on

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
is

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right.
We

have

independently

reviewed

the

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
record

and

Pettiford has not made the requisite showing.

conclude

that

Accordingly, we

deny Pettiford’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the

2

Appeal: 11-6071

facts

Document: 12

and

materials

legal
before

Date Filed: 06/20/2011

Page: 3 of 3

contentions

are

adequately

the

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3