UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7254
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DESHAUN DENNIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-00052-RDB; 1:08-cr-00012-RDB-2)
Submitted: October 31, 2011 Decided: November 15, 2011
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deshaun Dennis, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Mason Gruber, Kwame
Jangha Manley, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Deshaun Dennis seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)
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) (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 Dennis 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
*
Although the district court did not expressly address
Dennis’s claim under the Speedy Trial Act, we have reviewed it
and find it to be without merit.
2
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3