US v. Craig Scott
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:04-cr-00235-RWT-18. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999648661]. Mailed to: Craig Scott. [15-6144]
Appeal: 15-6144
Doc: 9
Filed: 08/27/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6144
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CRAIG ARNOLD SCOTT, a/k/a Craig Levi,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:04-cr-00235-RWT-18)
Submitted:
August 24, 2015
Decided:
August 27, 2015
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Craig Arnold Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Kenneth Ake, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Bonnie S. Greenberg, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Baltimore,
Maryland;
Mara
Zusman
Greenberg,
Deborah
A.
Johnston,
Assistant
United
States
Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-6144
Doc: 9
Filed: 08/27/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Craig Arnold Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s
order
dismissing
his
28
U.S.C.
§ 2255
(2012)
motion
as
an
unauthorized, successive motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) motion.
justice
or
These orders are not appealable unless a circuit
judge
issues
a
certificate
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
of
appealability.
28
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).
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
Scott has not made the requisite showing.
a
certificate
dispense
with
of
appealability
oral
argument
and
dismiss
because
2
Accordingly, we deny
the
the
appeal.
facts
and
We
legal
Appeal: 15-6144
Doc: 9
contentions
Filed: 08/27/2015
are
adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?