US v. Layne, No. 05-7785 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7785 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NORMAN LEROY LAYNE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-03-394; CA-05-798-1) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 3, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman Leroy Layne, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Alex Grider, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Norman Leroy Layne, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely filed. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this 28 U.S.C. standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Layne 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.