US v. Dione Fauntleroy, Sr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Certificate of appealability denied. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00336-BEL-13, 1:14-cv-00387-CCB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000089002]. Mailed to: Dione Fauntleroy Sr. [17-6117]

Appeal: 17-6117

Doc: 9

Filed: 05/26/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6117

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DIONE FAUNTLEROY, SR., a/k/a Big Man,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:10-cr-00336-BEL-13; 1:14-cv-00387-CCB)

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dione Fauntleroy, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John Romano, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6117

Doc: 9

Filed: 05/26/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Dione Fauntleroy, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter
or amend judgment. The orders are 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.” 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 (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 Fauntleroy 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