United States v. Ryan Ramey , 627 F. App'x 181 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-7178
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    RYAN RANDALL RAMEY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
    (8:09-cr-00162-RWT-1; 8:11-cv-00293-RWT)
    Submitted:   December 14, 2015             Decided:   December 17, 2015
    Before MOTZ and    AGEE,    Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ryan Randall Ramey, Appellant Pro          Se. Deborah A. Johnston,
    Assistant United States Attorney,          Greenbelt, Maryland, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Ryan Randall Ramey 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
    Ramey 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: 15-7178

Citation Numbers: 627 F. App'x 181

Judges: Motz, Agee, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/17/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024