UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6278
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAUL RAYMOND GREEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:09-cr-00230-AW-1; 8:10-cv-02749-AW)
Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 6, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul Raymond Green, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Dunsay Silver,
Lisa J. Stark, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
DC, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Paul Raymond Green 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)(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.
Because Green failed to challenge on appeal the district court’s
timeliness ruling, we conclude that he 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
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3