UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6987
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DELLANDO RECARDO CAMPBELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:14-cr-00058-WMN-1; 1:15-cv-02818-WMN)
Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dellando Recardo Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Sutherland
Clark, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, John Francis Purcell,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dellando Recardo Campbell 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
Campbell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
Campbell’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 materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2