US v. Harrington Campbell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 1:07-cr-00232-CCB-1,1:13-cv-00670-CCB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999408121]. Mailed to: appellant. [14-6600]

Appeal: 14-6600

Doc: 6

Filed: 08/01/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6600

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HARRINGTON CAMPBELL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00232-CCB-1; 1:13-cv-00670-CCB)

Submitted:

July 29, 2014

Decided:

August 1, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harrington Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John Romano,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6600

Doc: 6

Filed: 08/01/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Harrington
court’s

orders

Campbell

dismissing

seeks

as

to

untimely

appeal
his

28

the

district

U.S.C.

§ 2255

(2012) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.
orders

are

issues

not

a

appealable

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

unless
of

circuit

justice

appealability.

or

28

judge
U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

a

The

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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 Campbell 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: 14-6600

Doc: 6

contentions

Filed: 08/01/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3