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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999763009]. Mailed to: D. Elliott. [15-7947]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-7947 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/26/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7947 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT, Defendant -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) Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 26, 2016 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Eyler Kaplan, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-7947 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/26/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing motion. judge as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue his absent “a of 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” appealability. 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 Elliott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Elliott’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 adequately presented in the Appeal: 15-7947 Doc: 9 materials before Filed: 02/26/2016 this court Pg: 3 of 3 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?