UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8181
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NAKIE HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
(1:05-cr-00061-JFM-1)
Submitted: November 5, 2010 Decided: November 19, 2010
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nakie Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Albert David Copperthite, Allen
F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nakie Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on 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. We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Harris has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We also deny Harris’s pending motion to seal the
record. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3