US v. Kara McIntosh, No. 11-6682 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6682 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. KARA MCINTOSH, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00533-JFM-1; 1:11-cv-00509-JFM) Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 14, 2011 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kara McIntosh, Appellant Pro Se. Clinton Jacob Fuchs, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kara McIntosh seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. justice or 28 U.S.C. The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge § issues a 2253(c)(1)(B) certificate of (2006). A appealability. certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 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 constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. of the 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 right. debatable Slack, 529 claim of the denial U.S. at 484-85. of We a constitutional have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McIntosh has not made the requisite showing. appealability, deny Accordingly, McIntosh s appeal, and dismiss the appeal. we motion deny for a certificate release of pending We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 2 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.
