US v. Craig Scott


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6144 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6144 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CRAIG ARNOLD SCOTT, a/k/a Craig Levi,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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?