US v. Donald Cromwell, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00401-RDB-1,1:14-cv-00778-RDB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999537451]. Mailed to: Donald Cromwell. [14-7586]

Appeal: 14-7586

Doc: 7

Filed: 03/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7586

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONALD ELLIOTT CROMWELL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:08-cr-00401-RDB-1; 1:14-cv-00778-RDB)

Submitted:

February 25, 2015

Decided:

March 2, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Elliott Cromwell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7586

Doc: 7

Filed: 03/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Donald
district

Elliott

court’s

Cromwell,

order

Jr.,

granting

seeks

to

the

request

Cromwell’s

appeal

to

voluntarily dismiss 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.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised
in the Appellant’s brief.
Cromwell’s

informal

brief

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
does

not

challenge

the

Because
district

court’s order, Cromwell has forfeited appellate review of the
order.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
2

Appeal: 14-7586

Doc: 7

Filed: 03/02/2015

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

Pg: 3 of 3

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3