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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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