United States v. Timothy Claridy , 541 F. App'x 287 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-6684
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    TIMOTHY LEE CLARIDY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.    Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
    (1:07-cr-00244-RDB-1; 1:11-cv-02767-RDB)
    Submitted:   September 26, 2013           Decided:   October 3, 2013
    Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Timothy Lee Claridy, Appellant Pro Se. Seema Mittal, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Timothy      Lee        Claridy       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.”                          
    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 (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 Claridy 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: 13-6684

Citation Numbers: 541 F. App'x 287

Filed Date: 10/3/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014