United States v. Wardrick , 230 F. App'x 325 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6591
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ROBERT JUNIOR WARDRICK,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:01-cr-
    00217; 1:07-cv-00400-AMD)
    Submitted: June 15, 2007                    Decided:   June 22, 2007
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert Junior Wardrick, Appellant Pro Se. Debra L. Dwyer, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Junior Wardrick seeks to appeal the district
    court’s orders denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000)
    motion, because Wardrick had not received authorization from this
    court, and denying reconsideration.              The orders are not appealable
    unless     a    circuit   justice      or    judge   issues   a    certificate   of
    appealability.       
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000).               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) (2000).
    A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
    jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims
    by   the   district       court   is   debatable      or   wrong    and   that   any
    dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise
    debatable.       Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003);
    Slack v.       McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                We have independently reviewed the
    record and conclude Wardrick 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
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-6591

Citation Numbers: 230 F. App'x 325

Judges: King, Michael, Per Curiam, Widener

Filed Date: 6/22/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023