US v. Damon Elliott

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998920847]. Mailed to: Damon Emanuel Elliott. [12-6919]

Appeal: 12-6919

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/21/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6919

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:

August 16, 2012

Decided:

August 21, 2012

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se.
Stuart A. Berman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6919

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/21/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Damon Emanuel Elliott, a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s paperless order denying his motions
for a certificate of appealability in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West

Supp.

unless

a

2012)

proceedings.

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

The
judge

order

is

not

issues

a

certificate

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

appealable
of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

both

on

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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 Elliott has not made the requisite showing.

It is apparent

from

certificate

the

record

that

Elliott’s

motions

for

a

of

appealability were, in reality, an attempt to file a successive
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate
2

Appeal: 12-6919

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/21/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3