US v. Eric Richardson, No. 13-6687 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6687 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC RICHARDSON, a/k/a Father, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00288-WDQ-28; 1:12-cv-03753-WDQ) Submitted: June 13, 2013 Decided: June 18, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Alise Seldomridge, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eric Richardson seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. justice or The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). of appealability. 28 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) (2006). 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 of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson 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 2 before this 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.