US v. Mario Roger, No. 10-7401 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7401 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARIO REGINALD ROGERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:06-cr-00120-JAB-1; 1:08-cv-00881-JABWWD) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: February 25, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario Reginald Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mario court s order Reginald and Rogers judgment seeks to adopting appeal the the district magistrate judge s report and recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. unless a circuit appealability. justice or The order is not appealable judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). certificate of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. We have independently reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. record Rogers has not made the requisite showing. a certificate dispense with of appealability oral argument and conclude that Accordingly, we deny dismiss because 2 and the the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
