United States v. Brooker , 404 F. App'x 738 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-6843
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    MICHAEL J. BROOKER,
    Defendant – Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.      Alexander Williams, Jr., District
    Judge. (8:04-cr-00575-AW-1; 8:09-cv-02210-AW)
    Submitted:   November 18, 2010            Decided:   December 9, 2010
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael J. Brooker, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Richard Pauze,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael       J.   Brooker     seeks      to    appeal       the   district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West
    Supp.    2010)   motion.        The   order     is    not    appealable        unless   a
    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2006).                 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) (2006).                 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 Brooker 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
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-6843

Citation Numbers: 404 F. App'x 738

Judges: Niemeyer, King, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/9/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024