From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Cargill

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Oct 21, 2010
398 F. App'x 933 (4th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 10-6370.

Submitted: October 14, 2010.

Decided: October 21, 2010.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:08-cr-O0204-RWT-l; 8:09-cv-03055-RWT).

Thomas Edward Cargill, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Joseph Leotta, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Thomas Edward Cargill 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cargill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Cargill's request for transcripts at government expense. We dispense wdth oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Cargill

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Oct 21, 2010
398 F. App'x 933 (4th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Cargill

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Thomas Edward CARGILL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Oct 21, 2010

Citations

398 F. App'x 933 (4th Cir. 2010)