US v. Damon Elliott
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999728164-2] Originating case number: 8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1,8:15-cv-03523-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: D. Elliott. [15-7947]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1; 8:15-cv-03523-PJM)
February 23, 2016
February 26, 2016
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Eyler Kaplan,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
A certificate of appealability will not
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Elliott has not made the requisite showing.
deny Elliott’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the
Pg: 3 of 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?