United States v. Damon Elliott

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7947

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

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; 8:15-cv-03523-PJM)

Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 26, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Eyler Kaplan,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as successive 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

Elliott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny Elliott’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

2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED