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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999948206].. [16-6412]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6412 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6412 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DAVID HOWARD, Defendant - Appellant.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?