United States v. Manning , 129 F. App'x 752 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6133
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TREADWAY LEVON MANNING,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
    Judge. (CR-97-323; CA-04-517)
    Submitted:   March 10, 2005                 Decided:   March 15, 2005
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Treadway Levon Manning, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
    Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Treadway Levon Manning seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying as untimely his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).       The order is 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
    his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.     See 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   that   Manning   has   not   made   the   requisite
    showing.    Accordingly, we deny Manning’s motion for 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: 05-6133

Citation Numbers: 129 F. App'x 752

Judges: Luttig, Motz, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 3/15/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023