UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7871
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
COREY RICHARDSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:05-cr-00597-RDB-1; 1:12-cv-01514-RDB)
Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Corey Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Corey Howard Richardson 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
Richardson has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we
*
Richardson also argues that two of his convictions were
invalidated by Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).
Although issues raised for the first time on appeal are
generally waived, Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 560
F.3d 235, 242 (4th Cir. 2009), because of the impending deadline
(Continued)
2
deny a certificate of appealability, deny Richardson’s motions
to appoint counsel and for a transcript at Government expense,
and dismiss the appeal. 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
to file a Johnson claim, we consider Richardson’s claim.
Because the conviction underlying Richardson’s 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c) (2012) conviction was a drug offense rather than a
crime of violence, and his sentence enhancements were also based
on prior felony drug distribution convictions, Johnson is
inapposite, and he is entitled to no relief.
3