From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Ward

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
May 20, 2016
649 F. App'x 317 (4th Cir. 2016)

Opinion

No. 15-7755

05-20-2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES WARD, Defendant - Appellant.

James Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Richard Lee Edwards, Assistant United States Attorneys, David A. Thorneloe, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00083-MR-DLH-1; 1:15-cv-00161-MR) Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Richard Lee Edwards, Assistant United States Attorneys, David A. Thorneloe, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

James Ward seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely filed. The order is 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 Ward 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 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED


Summaries of

United States v. Ward

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
May 20, 2016
649 F. App'x 317 (4th Cir. 2016)
Case details for

United States v. Ward

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES WARD, Defendant …

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: May 20, 2016

Citations

649 F. App'x 317 (4th Cir. 2016)