UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6919
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1)
Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Damon Emanuel Elliott, a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s paperless order denying his motions
for a certificate of appealability in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2012) proceedings. The order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 Elliott has not made the requisite showing. It is apparent
from the record that Elliott’s motions for a certificate of
appealability were, in reality, an attempt to file a successive
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
2
of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3