US v. Nakie Harris

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to seal [998405803-2] Originating case number: 1:05-cr-00061-JFM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998469350] [09-8181]

US v. Nakie Harris

Doc. 0

Case: 09-8181 Document: 18

Date Filed: 11/19/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8181 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAKIE HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00061-JFM-1) Submitted: November 5, 2010 Decided: November 19, 2010

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nakie Harris, Appellant Pro Se. F. Loucks, Assistant United Maryland, for Appellee. Albert David Copperthite, Allen States Attorneys, Baltimore,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-8181 Document: 18

Date Filed: 11/19/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Nakie Harris seeks to appeal the district court's

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a

substantial

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. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Harris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. record. legal We also deny Harris's pending motion to seal the

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are adequately presented in the materials

contentions

2

Case: 09-8181 Document: 18

Date Filed: 11/19/2010

Page: 3

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3