US v. Damon Elliott
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1,8:17-cv-00589-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000089261]. Mailed to: Damon Elliott. [17-6430]
Appeal: 17-6430
Doc: 9
Filed: 05/26/2017
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6430
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1; 8:17-cv-00589-PJM)
Submitted: May 23, 2017
Decided: May 26, 2017
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Eyler Kaplan, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 17-6430
Doc: 9
Filed: 05/26/2017
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without
prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and unauthorized. 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.” 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 Elliott 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
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?