UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7416
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH GEORGE ECKER, a/k/a Joseph George Wechsler, a/k/a
Joseph G. Ecker, a/k/a Tom Ellis, a/k/a Joe Ecker, a/k/a
Larry James Floyd, a/k/a James Nelson,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-6243
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH GEORGE ECKER, a/k/a Joseph George Wechsler, a/k/a
Joseph G. Ecker, a/k/a Tom Ellis, a/k/a Joe Ecker, a/k/a
Larry James Floyd, a/k/a James Nelson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00158-LMB-1; 1:11-cv-01006-LMB)
Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 18, 2013
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph George Ecker, Appellant Pro Se. Stacy Bogert, Sarah
Devlin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Joseph George Ecker
seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (1) denying Ecker’s
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion (No. 13-6243); and
(2) verifying its previous denial of Ecker’s motion for
appointment of counsel (No. 12-7416). The orders are 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 Ecker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Ecker’s motion for a certificate of appealability in No.
3
13-6243, deny a certificate of appealability in No. 12-7416, and
dismiss the appeals. 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
4