US v. Eric Richardson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00288-WDQ-28,1:12-cv-03753-WDQ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999132299]. Mailed to: Eric Richardson. [13-6687]
Appeal: 13-6687
Doc: 12
Filed: 06/18/2013
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6687
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC RICHARDSON, a/k/a Father,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00288-WDQ-28; 1:12-cv-03753-WDQ)
Submitted:
June 13, 2013
Decided:
June 18, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Lauren Alise Seldomridge,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-6687
Doc: 12
Filed: 06/18/2013
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Eric Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2012) motion.
justice
or
The order is not appealable unless a circuit
judge
issues
a
certificate
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
of
appealability.
28
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.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484
Cockrell,
(2000);
(2003).
see
Miller-El
v.
537
U.S.
322,
336-38
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,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that
Richardson
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
Appeal: 13-6687
before
Doc: 12
this
court
Filed: 06/18/2013
and
Pg: 3 of 3
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?