US v. Reginald Dargan, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00578-CCB-3,1:15-cv-01351-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999915381].. [16-6550]

Appeal: 16-6550

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6550

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD DUANE DARGAN, JR.,
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-00578-CCB-1; 1:15-cv-01351-CCB)

Submitted:

August 18, 2016

Decided:

August 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Duane Dargan, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin M. Block,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, John Walter Sippel, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6550

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Reginald Duane Dargan, Jr., 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.
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

28

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 (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

constitutional right.

a

debatable

claim

of

the

denial

of

a

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Dargan has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

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

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2