United States v. David Ramey, Jr. , 583 F. App'x 252 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6629
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID ALEXANDER RAMEY, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:09-cr-00054-GEC-RSB-1; 7:13-cv-80603-GEC-
RSB)
Submitted: September 15, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Alexander Ramey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew
Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Alexander Ramey, Jr., 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 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 Ramey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
although we grant Ramey’s motion to supplement his informal
brief, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3