UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7548
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT FULTON ROOD, IV,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00052-CMH-1; 1:14-cv-01144-CMH)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 1, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Fulton Rood, IV, Appellant Pro Se. Uzo Enyinnaya Asonye,
Michael Edward Rich, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Christopher John Catizone, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Fulton Rood, IV, seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion
and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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)
(2012). 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
Rood has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3