-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7467 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TYRONE DALE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00144-RDB-1; 1:14-cv-00816-RDB) Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Dale, Appellant Pro Se. Clinton Jacob Fuchs, Assistant United States Attorney, Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tyrone Dale seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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 Dale 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 2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 15-7467
Citation Numbers: 642 F. App'x 281
Filed Date: 3/31/2016
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023