US v. Paul Green, No. 11-6278 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6278 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PAUL RAYMOND GREEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:09-cr-00230-AW-1; 8:10-cv-02749-AW) Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 6, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Raymond Green, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Dunsay Silver, Lisa J. Stark, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Paul court s Raymond order Green dismissing as (West Supp. 2010) motion. 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)(B) (2006). 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 ruling must is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. Because Green failed to challenge on appeal the district court s timeliness requisite ruling, showing. we conclude that he has Accordingly, we deny a appealability and dismiss the appeal. not made certificate the of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 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.