UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7723
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CALVIN BERNARD GREEN, a/k/a Aaron O. Smith, Jr., a/k/a
Calvin M. Green, a/k/a Calvin D. Smith, a/k/a Calvin Marvin
Smith, a/k/a Calvin Darnell Green, a/k/a Budda Smith, a/k/a
Calvin Darnell Smith, a/k/a William Mingo Johnson,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:99-cr-00032-jct-1; 7:09-cv-80166-jct-mfu)
Submitted: November 3, 2009 Decided: November 30, 2009
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Calvin Bernard Green, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge
Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Bernard Green seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2009) 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). 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, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Green 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
2