UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7531
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MARLON BRADFORD SUMMERVILLE,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:03-cr-00462-JCC-2)
Submitted: May 3, 2011 Decided: May 20, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marlon Bradford Summerville, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph
Leiser, James L. Trump, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marlon Bradford Summerville seeks to appeal the
district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 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). 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
Summerville 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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3