US v. Howard Scott

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:09-cr-00991-PMD-1,2:12-cv-01097-PMD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999027547]. Mailed to: Howard Scott. [12-7971]

Appeal: 12-7971

Doc: 5

Filed: 01/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7971

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HOWARD SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00991-PMD-1; 2:12-cv-01097-PMD)

Submitted:

January 17, 2013

Decided: January 23, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Howard Scott, Appellant Pro Se.
Matthew J. Modica, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Charleston,
South
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7971

Doc: 5

Filed: 01/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Howard

Scott

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)
motion.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

constitutional

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

right.”

appealability.

28

showing
U.S.C.

of

the

denial

§ 2253(c)(2).

of

When

a
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 Scott 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: 12-7971

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 01/23/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3