UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6144
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CRAIG ARNOLD SCOTT, a/k/a Craig Levi,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:04-cr-00235-RWT-18)
Submitted: August 24, 2015 Decided: August 27, 2015
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Craig Arnold Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Kenneth Ake, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Bonnie S. Greenberg, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Mara Zusman
Greenberg, Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Craig Arnold Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as an
unauthorized, successive motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) motion. These orders are 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
Scott 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3