US v. Charles Pyne

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 8:04-cr-00018-DKC-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999716692]. Mailed to: Charles Pyne. [15-6061]

Appeal: 15-6061

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/11/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6061

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES PYNE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:04-cr-00018-DKC-3)

Submitted:

August 10, 2015

Decided:

December 11, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Pyne, Appellant
Assistant United States
Appellee.

Pro Se.
Attorney,

Barbara Suzanne Skalla,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6061

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/11/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Charles Pyne seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying

his

July

23,

2014

motion

for

reconsideration

of

the

court’s August 30, 2007 order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion and March 27, 2014 order denying his Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) motion.
a

circuit

justice

appealability.

or

The order is not appealable unless
judge

issues

a

certificate

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

both

on

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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
Pyne has not made the requisite showing.
certificate

of

We dispense

with

appealability
oral

argument
2

and
because

Accordingly, we deny a
dismiss
the

the

facts

appeal.
and

legal

Appeal: 15-6061

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 12/11/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3