US v. Shelly Martin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:04-cr-00029-JFM-3,1:16-cv-00109-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999929909].. [16-6560]

Appeal: 16-6560

Doc: 13

Filed: 09/15/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6560

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHELLY WAYNE MARTIN, a/k/a Wayne,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:04-cr-00029-JFM-3; 1:16-cv-00109-JFM)

Submitted:

September 13, 2016

Decided:

September 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shelly Wayne Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon,
Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6560

Doc: 13

Filed: 09/15/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Shelly Wayne Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders

denying

Martin’s

self-styled

“Motion

Under

the

Declaratory Judgment Act of 28 U.S.C. § 2201,” construing this
motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it for
lack of jurisdiction because it was a successive § 2255 motion
for which Martin had not received prefiling authorization, and
denying Martin’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend
judgment.

The

justice

judge

or

orders

are

issues

a

not

appealable

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

unless

a

circuit

appealability.

28

A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
529 U.S. at 484-85.

2

Slack,

Appeal: 16-6560

Doc: 13

Filed: 09/15/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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

certificate

dispense

of

with

contentions

are

appealability

oral

argument

adequately

and

dismiss

because

presented

Accordingly, we deny

in

the
the

the

appeal.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3