US v. David Howard
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999778698-2] Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00494-MJG-2,1:14-cv-02573-MJG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999948206].. [16-6412]
Appeal: 16-6412
Doc: 12
Filed: 10/17/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6412
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DAVID HOWARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:11-cr-00494-MJG-2; 1:14-cv-02573-MJG)
Submitted:
October 13, 2016
Decided:
October 17, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Paul E. Budlow, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Mark Walter Crooks, OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNOR, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6412
Doc: 12
Filed: 10/17/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
David Howard 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
Howard has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
Howard’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
Appeal: 16-6412
before
Doc: 12
this
court
Filed: 10/17/2016
and
Pg: 3 of 3
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?