US v. Ronald Sadm

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999956819-2]. Originating case number: 5:08-cr-00021-MFU-RSB-1,5:15-cv-80849-MFU-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000026707]. Mailed to: Ronald Sadm. [16-7312]

Appeal: 16-7312

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/21/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7312

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONALD JUNIOR SADM, a/k/a Ronald Junior Bossadm,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge.
(5:08-cr-00021-MFU-RSB-1; 5:15-cv-80849-MFURSB)

Submitted:

February 16, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge,
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Decided:

DUNCAN,

February 21, 2017

Circuit

Judge,

and

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Junior Sadm, Appellant Pro Se.
Jean Barrett Hudson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, Jeb
Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7312

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/21/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ronald Junior Sadm seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

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
Sadm has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

Sadm’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal.
legal

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions

are

adequately

2

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 16-7312

before

Doc: 7

this

Filed: 02/21/2017

court

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3