United States v. Matthew Dulaney

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6193

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

MATTHEW LEE DULANEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. David A. Faber,
Senior District Judge. (6:01-cr-00098-DAF-1; 6:08-cv-00859;
6:09-cv-00372)

Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 26, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Lee Dulaney, Appellant Pro Se. R. Booth Goodwin, II,
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Matthew Lee Dulaney seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp. 2011) 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.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Dulaney 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