United States v. Hardy , 166 F. App'x 49 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7420
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HOWARD HARDY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-7584
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HOWARD HARDY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-95-156; CA-05-880; CA-05-1103)
Submitted: January 13, 2006 Decided: February 7, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard Hardy, Appellant Pro Se. Irvin McCreary Allen, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In No. 05-7420, Howard Hardy seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as
untimely. In No. 05-7584, he seeks to appeal the court’s order
dismissing a later-filed § 2255 motion on the ground that it was a
“second or successive” § 2255 motion requiring a certificate of
appealability from this court, which Hardy did not obtain. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244 (2000).
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
§ 2255 proceeding 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 the district
court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hardy has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of
appealability and dismiss Hardy’s appeals. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 3 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 4 -