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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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