US v. David Howard
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. .. [16-6412]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
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)
October 13, 2016
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
David Howard seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
When the district court denies
(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
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
Slack, 529 U.S.
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
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
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?