US v. Cedric Washington, No. 13-7674 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7674 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CEDRIC DEON WASHINGTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:09-cr-00800-PMD-4; 2:13-cv-00248-PMD) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014 Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cedric Deon Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Modica, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cedric Deon Washington seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent a of 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. appealability. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a 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 Washington Accordingly, appealability, we has not made deny his motion deny dismiss the appeal. facts and legal leave to proceed the for in requisite a showing. certificate forma pauperis, of and We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 adequately presented in the materials 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.
