US v. David Parker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:11-cr-00459-JFM-1, 1:16-cv-00402-JFM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000003996]. Mailed to: David Parker. [16-7039]

Appeal: 16-7039

Doc: 10

Filed: 01/17/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7039

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID ISAAC PARKER, a/k/a David Green, a/k/a David Smith,
a/k/a Jay Smith, a/k/a David Isaac Parker-El,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge.
(8:11-cr-00459-JFM-1; 1:16-cv-00402-JFM)

Submitted:

January 5, 2017

Decided:

January 17, 2017

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Isaac Parker, Appellant Pro Se.
Deborah A. Johnston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland; Paul Nitze,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Rachel
E. Timm, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7039

Doc: 10

Filed: 01/17/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
David Isaac Parker seeks to appeal from the district court’s
order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).

28 U.S.C.

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 a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Parker 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