US v. Damon Elliott
Filing
920100628
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6504
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1)
Submitted:
June 17, 2010
Decided:
June 28, 2010
Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.
KING,
Circuit
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
Senior
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Slaymaker Sale, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district
court's order denying relief on his motion for a certificate of appealability proceedings. justice or in The judge his 28 U.S.C.A. is not § 2255 (West Supp. a 2010)
order
appealable of
unless
circuit 28
issues a
certificate
appealability.
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent "a
A certificate of appealability will 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 Elliott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, Elliott's we deny for a certificate at of appealability, expense, deny and
motion
transcript
government
dismiss the appeal. facts and legal
We dispense with oral argument because the are 2 adequately presented in the
contentions
materials
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process. DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?