United States v. Carter

169 F. App'x 807
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 6, 2006·No. 05-7675·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Carter seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing 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 appeal-ability. 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 both that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Carter 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

*

Carter’s Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 motion was dismissed without prejudice in August 2004, and he did not appeal. He subsequently filed a § 2255 motion, and the dismissal of this motion is the subject of the present appeal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Carter, 169 F. App'x 807 (4th Cir. 2006).

169 F. App'x 807 (United States v. Carter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Rose v. Lee
252 F.3d 676 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)