US v. Corey Richardson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999764234-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999715792-2] Originating case number: 1:05-cr-00597-RDB-1,1:12-cv-01514-RDB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999871709]. Mailed to: Corey Richardson. [15-7871]

Appeal: 15-7871

Doc: 18

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7871

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
COREY RICHARDSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:05-cr-00597-RDB-1; 1:12-cv-01514-RDB)

Submitted:

June 23, 2016

Decided:

June 28, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Bonnie
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Appellee.

S. Greenberg,
Maryland, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7871

Doc: 18

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Corey

Howard

Richardson

28

U.S.C.

district

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

§ 2255

appealability.

28

(2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

his

the

motion.

a

on

appeal

order

issues

relief

to

court’s

judge

denying

seeks

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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
Richardson has not made the requisite showing. *

*

Accordingly, we

Richardson also argues that two of his convictions were
invalidated by Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).
Although issues raised for the first time on appeal are
generally waived, Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 560
F.3d 235, 242 (4th Cir. 2009), because of the impending deadline
(Continued)
2

Appeal: 15-7871

Doc: 18

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Richardson’s motions
to appoint counsel and for a transcript at Government expense,
and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

to file a Johnson claim, we consider Richardson’s claim.
Because
the
conviction
underlying
Richardson’s
18
U.S.C.
§ 924(c) (2012) conviction was a drug offense rather than a
crime of violence, and his sentence enhancements were also based
on prior felony drug distribution convictions, Johnson is
inapposite, and he is entitled to no relief.

3