US v. Naim Dawson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00106-CCB-1,1:10-cv-01535-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998950392]. Mailed to: Dawson and Peters. [12-6948]

Appeal: 12-6948

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/02/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6948

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NAIM DAWSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00106-CCB-1; 1:10-cv-01535-CCB)

Submitted:

September 27, 2012

Decided:

October 2, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Naim Dawson, Appellant Pro Se.
Joshua L. Kaul, Charles Joseph
Peters, Sr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6948

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/02/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Naim
orders denying

Dawson

seeks

relief

on

to

his

appeal

28

the

U.S.C.A.

district

§ 2255

court’s

(West

Supp.

2012) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration.
orders are
issues

not

a

appealable

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

unless
of

circuit

justice

appealability.

or

28

judge
U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

a

The

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 Dawson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 12-6948

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/02/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3