United States v. Tyrone Campbell

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Tyrone Campbell, 548 F. App'x 931 (4th Cir. 2013)

United States v. Tyrone Campbell

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7292

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

TYRONE ROBERT CAMPBELL, a/k/a Mr. Muhammad, a/k/a Muhammad Shahid, a/k/a Tyrone Moore,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00218-WMN-1; 1:13-cv-00471-WMN)

Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Robert Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Sujit Raman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Tyrone Robert Campbell seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2013) 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 Campbell 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

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished