United States v. Berry , 301 F. App'x 205 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-7550
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    C. WAYNE BERRY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (2:08-cv-00201-RAJ; 2:05-cr-00155-RAJ-FBS-1)
    Submitted:    November 20, 2008           Decided:   December 1, 2008
    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    C. Wayne Berry, Appellant Pro Se. Robert John Krask, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    C. Wayne Berry seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order dismissing as untimely his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion.
    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 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      that    Berry      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: 08-7550

Citation Numbers: 301 F. App'x 205

Filed Date: 12/1/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021