United States v. Pirtle

326 F. App'x 235

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 3, 2009
• Docket: 08-8100
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8100

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RONALD PIRTLE, a/k/a Primo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00335-MJG-4; 1:07−cv−02634−MJG)

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 3, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Pirtle, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, Paul M. Tiao, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Ronald Pirtle seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008)

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Pirtle has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion

for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Pirtle’s pending motions are denied. 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