US v. Giovanni Bell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:07-cr-00160-PJM-1,8:13-cv-01682-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999568596]. Mailed to: Giovanni Bell. [15-6016]

Appeal: 15-6016

Doc: 7

Filed: 04/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GIOVANNI BELL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:07-cr-00160-PJM-1; 8:13-cv-01682-PJM)

Submitted:

April 16, 2015

Decided:

April 21, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Giovanni Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greenbelt,
Maryland;
Antonio
J.
Reynolds, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6016

Doc: 7

Filed: 04/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Giovanni Bell 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 of appealability.
A

certificate

of

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

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

merits,

demonstrating
district

that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

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
Bell has not made the requisite showing.
certificate
dispense

of

with

appealability
oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny a

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 15-6016

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 04/21/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3