United States of America v. Daniel Woods

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8299
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL WOODS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00025-JPB-JES-1; 3:07-cv-00155-
JPB-JES)
Submitted: June 24, 2009 Decided: July 7, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Daniel Woods seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion as
untimely. Woods also seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for
reconsideration. The orders are 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). 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 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Woods has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Woods’s
motion for 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

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --