US v. Michael Foreman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999687450-2] Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00398-JKB-1,1:15-cv-01258-JKB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999765144].. [15-7585]

Appeal: 15-7585

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7585

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL FOREMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:11-cr-00398-JKB-1, 1:15-cv-01258-JKB)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

March 1, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Foreman, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin M. Block, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Henry Brandis Marsh, Jr., Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7585

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael Foreman 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

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

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
Foreman has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Foreman’s motion for
an order directing the district court to explain the sentence,
and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2

Appeal: 15-7585

Doc: 13

materials

before

Filed: 03/01/2016

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3