US v. Romaine Abdul Short

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999483453-2]; denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999461195-2] Originating case number: 4:07-cr-00123-RBS-JEB-3,4:14-cv-00061-RBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999530936]. Mailed to: Short. [14-7555]

Appeal: 14-7555

Doc: 15

Filed: 02/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7555

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROMAINE ABDUL SHORT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge.
(4:07-cr-00123-RBS-JEB-3; 4:14-cv-00061RBS)

Submitted:

February 12, 2015

Decided:

February 19, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Romaine Abdul Short, Appellant Pro Se.
Dana James Boente,
Acting United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Lisa Rae
McKeel,
Howard
Jacob
Zlotnick,
Assistant
United
States
Attorneys, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7555

Doc: 15

Filed: 02/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Romaine

Abdul

Short

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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 Short has not made the requisite showing.
deny

a

motion

for

transcripts at government expense, and dismiss the appeal.

We

deny as moot Short’s motion to place his case in abeyance.

We

dispense

certificate

with

oral

of

appealability,

argument

because
2

deny

Accordingly, we

the

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 14-7555

Doc: 15

contentions

are

Filed: 02/19/2015

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

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

3