US v. Chi Ray

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999250616-2]. Originating case numbers: 1:08-cr-00117-JFM-1,1:13-cv-03057-JFM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999325112]. Mailed to: Chi Ray. [13-7787]

Appeal: 13-7787

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/28/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7787

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHI ANTONIO RAY,
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-00117-JFM-1; 1:13-cv-03057-JFM)

Submitted:

March 25, 2014

Decided:

March 28, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chi Antonio Ray, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Kristi
Noel O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7787

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/28/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Chi Antonio Ray seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2012).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

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) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Ray has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny Ray’s motion for 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: 13-7787

before

Doc: 11

this

court

Filed: 03/28/2014

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3