US v. William Terrence Cro

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1,2:13-cv-00360-RBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999206681]. Mailed to: William Terrence Cross. [13-7221]

Appeal: 13-7221

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/02/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7221

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS, a/k/a Red,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1; 2:13-cv-00360-RBS)

Submitted:

September 10, 2013

Decided:

October 2, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Terrence Cross, Appellant
Tayman,
Assistant
United
States
Virginia, for Appellee.

Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro
Attorney,
Newport
News,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7221

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/02/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William Terrence Cross seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp.

2013)

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

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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 Cross has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 13-7221

Doc: 6

contentions

Filed: 10/02/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3