United States v. John Blaes , 589 F. App'x 124 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-6993
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    JOHN ANDREW BLAES,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.      James K. Bredar, District Judge.
    (1:12-cr-00247-JKB-1; 1:14-cv-00468-JKB)
    Submitted:   December 15, 2014            Decided:   December 24, 2014
    Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Justin Gelfand, CAPES SOKOL GOODMAN & SARACHAN PC, St. Louis,
    Missouri, for Appellant. Rachel Miller Yasser, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    John Andrew Blaes seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.                              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 Blaes 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
    2
    contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-6993

Citation Numbers: 589 F. App'x 124

Judges: Agee, Floyd, King, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/24/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024