US v. Aaron Somerville

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00442-JFM-1,1:13-cv-00437-JFM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999222097]. Mailed to: Aaron Somerville. [13-6947]

Appeal: 13-6947

Doc: 14

Filed: 10/21/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6947

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AARON TYLER SOMERVILLE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00442-JFM-1; 1:13-cv-00437-JFM)

Submitted:

October 17, 2013

Decided: October 21, 2013

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron Tyler Somerville, Appellant Pro Se.
Christopher John
Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6947

Doc: 14

Filed: 10/21/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Aaron Tyler Somerville seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp.

2013)

motion.

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.”
(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

ruling

must
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

Somerville

has

not

made

the

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2

Appeal: 13-6947

before

Doc: 14

this

court

Filed: 10/21/2013

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3