Eccleston v. USA - 2255

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 5/2/2018. (aos, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
XAVIER D. ECCLESTON
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Respondent.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* 

Civil No. PJM 17-729
Criminal No. PJM 11-0567

MEMORANDUM OPINION
By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 23, 2018, the Court denied Petitioner
Xavier D. Eccleston’s Motion to Vacate or Correct Illegal Sentence, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (ECF No. 522). By oversight, the Court neglected to address the matter of a Certificate of
Appealability per 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
On April 26, 2018, Eccleston filed a Motion for Certificate of Appealability (ECF No.
536) and a Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 537). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit immediately remanded the appeal to this Court “for the limited purpose of permitting the
USDC to supplement the record with an order granting or denying a certificate of appealability.”
ECF No. 540. Having considered the matter, the Court now DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for a
Certificate of Appealability. ECF No. 536.
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Cases provides that the district court “must
issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.”
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). A petitioner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims
by the district court is debatable or wrong, and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the

-1-

district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).
The Court has considered the record and finds that Petitioner has not made the requisite
showing. He asserted that his attorney provided him with ineffective assistance in violation of
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). His claim, rooted in factual and not legal
disputes, was wholly without merit and failed to satisfy the pertinent “reasonable jurists”
standard. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Petitioner’s
Motion for Certificate of Appealability, ECF No. 536, is DENIED.
A separate Order will ISSUE.

/s/________________
PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
May 2, 2018

-2-