UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6593
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANK BAILEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00559-RDB-1; 1:12-cv-03557-RDB)
Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 27, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John J. Korzen, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Michael Clayton
Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frank Bailey seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
dismissing as time-barred his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
denying his motion to alter, amend, or otherwise seek relief
from the court’s judgment. 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
Bailey 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