UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7956
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BENJAMIN LEE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:09-cr-00551-ELH-1; 1:12-cv-01321-ELH)
Submitted: June 10, 2014 Decided: August 5, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Marshall Nothstein,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Sujit
Raman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin Lee seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(2012). 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) (2012). 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 Lee has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Lee
moves to seal the entire case. While we see no compelling
reason to seal everything, see In re State-Record Co., 917 F.2d
124, 129 (4th Cir. 1990) (docket entry sheet not likely to
2
contain information prejudicial to the criminal defendant), we
will grant the motion insofar as it pertains to his informal
brief and the motion to seal. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3