US v. Paul B. Mitchell, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00382-H-1,5:12-cv-00471-H. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999161798]. Mailed to: Paul Mitchell, Jr.. [13-6636]

Appeal: 13-6636

Doc: 9

Filed: 07/30/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6636

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAUL BERNARD MITCHELL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00382-H-1; 5:12-cv-00471-H)

Submitted:

July 25, 2013

Decided:

July 30, 2013

Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Bernard Mitchell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. MayParker,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Raleigh,
North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6636

Doc: 9

Filed: 07/30/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Paul

Bernard

Mitchell,

Jr.,

seeks

to

appeal

the

district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion.
unless

a

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

The order is not appealable

judge

issues

a

certificate

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

of

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 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.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Mitchell has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2