United States v. Aundrae White

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Aundrae White, 487 F. App'x 797 (4th Cir. 2012)

United States v. Aundrae White

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7289

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

AUNDRAE CANNON WHITE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:09-cr-00075-TLW-1; 4:12-cv-00333-TLW)

Submitted: October 22, 2012 Decided: November 8, 2012

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aundrae Cannon White, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Aundrae Cannon White seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(1)(B) (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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); see Miller-El v.

Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(2003). When the district court

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the

denial of a constitutional right. Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85

.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished