US v. Andre Everett

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999031334-2] Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00207-CCB-3,1:12-cv-02059-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court. [999096722]. Mailed to: Andre Everett. [12-8033]

Appeal: 12-8033

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/29/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8033

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANDRE EVERETT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00207-CCB-3; 1:12-cv-02059-CCB)

Submitted:

April 25, 2013

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

WYNN,

Circuit

Decided: April 29, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andre Everett, Appellant Pro Se.
Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-8033

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/29/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Andre

Everett

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

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

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 Everett has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 12-8033

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/29/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3