United States of America v. Quindelle Jay Russ

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6060
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
QUINDELLE JAY RUSS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (2:06-cr-01290-DCN-1; 2:10-cv-70239-DCN)
Submitted: March 15, 2011 Decided: March 21, 2011
Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Quindelle Jay Russ, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Quindelle Jay Russ seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2010) 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) (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 (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
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85. By failing to challenge the district
court’s dispositive procedural ruling in his informal brief on
appeal, we conclude that Russ 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --