US v. Eduado Counte

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:04-cr-00232-CCB-2,1:09-cv-02558-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999050371]. Mailed to: Eduado Countess. [12-7614]

Appeal: 12-7614

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7614

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDUADO SHAWAN COUNTESS, a/k/a Eduardo Countess, a/k/a Bam,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:04-cr-00232-CCB-2; 1:09-cv-02558-CCB)

Submitted:

February 21, 2013

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

DAVIS,

Circuit

Decided: February 25, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eduado Shawan Countess, Appellant Pro Se.
Jason M. Weinstein, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Andrea L. Smith,
STATES ATTORNEY,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7614

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Eduado Shawan Countess seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

denying

relief

(West Supp. 2012) motion.

on

his

28

U.S.C.A.

§ 2255

The order is 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).

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

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.

of

the

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

right.

denial

of

a

constitutional

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Countess has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 12-7614

Doc: 12

contentions

are

Filed: 02/25/2013

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3