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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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