United States v. Ronnie Earl Knox

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Ronnie Earl Knox, 512 F. App'x 376 (4th Cir. 2013)

United States v. Ronnie Earl Knox

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7987

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RONNIE EARL KNOX,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00220-FDW-4; 3:12-cv-00389-FDW)

Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 1, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Earl Knox, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Ronnie Earl Knox 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 Knox 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Unpublished