United States v. Gross , 356 F. App'x 663 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-7964
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    JAMES ELMER GROSS, SR., a/k/a Stink,
    Defendant – Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.     J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
    (1:02-cr-00201-JFM-1; 1:07-cv-01808-JFM)
    Submitted:    December 15, 2009            Decided:   December 17, 2009
    Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Elmer Gross, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.         Robert Reeves
    Harding, Christine Manuelian, Assistant United States Attorneys,
    Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    James Elmer Gross, Sr., seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West
    Supp.    2009)    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).         A
    prisoner       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 district
    court is likewise debatable.                  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).                               We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gross 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 the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-7964

Citation Numbers: 356 F. App'x 663

Filed Date: 12/17/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014