United States v. Donald Cromwell, Jr. ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7586
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONALD ELLIOTT CROMWELL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:08-cr-00401-RDB-1; 1:14-cv-00778-RDB)
Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald Elliott Cromwell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald Elliott Cromwell, Jr., seeks to appeal the
district court’s order granting Cromwell’s request to
voluntarily dismiss 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.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised
in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Cromwell’s informal brief does not challenge the district
court’s order, Cromwell has forfeited appellate review of the
order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
2
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
3