US v. Daren Gadsden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status; denying Motion for other relief [999767641-2] Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00302-CCB-3,1:15-cv-01965-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999839015]. Mailed to: Daren Kareem Gadsden. [16-6257]

Appeal: 16-6257

Doc: 13

Filed: 06/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6257

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAREN KAREEM GADSDEN, a/k/a D,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:11-cr-00302-CCB-3; 1:15-cv-01965-CCB)

Submitted:

May 26, 2016

Decided:

June 1, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daren Kareem Gadsden, Appellant Pro Se. Sujit Raman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, Rod J. Rosenstein,
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6257

Doc: 13

Filed: 06/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Daren Kareem Gadsden seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
he has filed a motion to disqualify the United States Attorney,
as

well

as

a

self-styled

“writ

court’s order

is

not

judge

a

certificate

issues

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

appealable

error[.]”

unless

of

a

The

circuit

district

justice

appealability.

28

or

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

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
Gadsden has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny Gadsden’s motion to disqualify the United States Attorney,
deny his writ of error, deny a certificate of appealability, and
2

Appeal: 16-6257

Doc: 13

Filed: 06/01/2016

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

Pg: 3 of 3

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3