US v. Damon Emanuel Elliott

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1,8:14-cv-02732-PJM,8:14-cv-02742-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999499200]. Mailed to: D. Elliott. [14-7382]

Appeal: 14-7382

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/23/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7382

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge.
(8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1; 8:14-cv-02732-PJM; 8:14-cv-02742PJM)

Submitted:

December 18, 2014

Decided:

December 23, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se.
Sujit Raman, Assistant United States
Maryland, for Appellee.

Lindsay Eyler Kaplan,
Attorneys, Greenbelt,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7382

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/23/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Damon

Emanuel

Elliott

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) and his motion filed pursuant to
28

U.S.C.

§

1651

(2012),

of

or

issues

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

2255

appealability.

(2012)

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

§

court

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
of

U.S.C.

district

motions.

certificate

28

the

construed

a

successive

which

properly

judge

as

both

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 Elliott has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2

Appeal: 14-7382

We

Doc: 10

dispense

contentions

Filed: 12/23/2014

with
are

Pg: 3 of 3

oral

because

argument

adequately

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3