United States of America v. Patrick Stephen Walsh, a/k/a Patrick Steven Walsh

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8171
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
PATRICK STEPHEN WALSH, a/k/a Patrick Steven Walsh,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:05-
cr-00001-RWT-1; 8:08-cv-02637-RWT)
Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: May 11, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick Stephen Walsh, Appellant Pro Se. Chan Park, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Stephen Walsh seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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). A prisoner
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by
the district court is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise
debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Walsh 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 before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --