US v. Paul Green

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:09-cr-00230-AW-1,8:10-cv-02749-AW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998625872]. Mailed to: Paul Raymond Green. [11-6278]

Appeal: 11-6278

Document: 14

Date Filed: 07/06/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6278

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAUL RAYMOND GREEN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:09-cr-00230-AW-1; 8:10-cv-02749-AW)

Submitted:

June 30, 2011

Decided:

July 6, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Raymond Green, Appellant Pro Se.
Jessica Dunsay Silver,
Lisa J. Stark, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
DC, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6278

Document: 14

Date Filed: 07/06/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Paul
court’s

Raymond

order

Green

dismissing

as

(West Supp. 2010) motion.

seeks

to

untimely

appeal

his

28

the

district

U.S.C.A.

§

2255

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

on

both

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.

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

Because Green failed to challenge on appeal the district court’s
timeliness
requisite

ruling,
showing.

we

conclude

that

he

has

Accordingly,

we

deny

a

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

not

made

certificate

the
of

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 11-6278

Document: 14

Date Filed: 07/06/2011

Page: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3