US v. Calvin Green, No. 09-7723 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7723 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CALVIN BERNARD GREEN, a/k/a Aaron O. Smith, Jr., a/k/a Calvin M. Green, a/k/a Calvin D. Smith, a/k/a Calvin Marvin Smith, a/k/a Calvin Darnell Green, a/k/a Budda Smith, a/k/a Calvin Darnell Smith, a/k/a William Mingo Johnson, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:99-cr-00032-jct-1; 7:09-cv-80166-jct-mfu) Submitted: November 3, 2009 Before KING and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and November 30, 2009 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Bernard Green, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Calvin court s order Bernard dismissing (West Supp. 2009) motion. Green as seeks to untimely appeal his 28 the district U.S.C.A. § 2255 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). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Green has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we appealability and dismiss the appeal. deny a certificate of 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.
