United States v. Dwight Fulton , 501 F. App'x 232 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7612
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DWIGHT JULIUS FULTON, a/k/a DJ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:10-cr-00022-JKB-2; 1:11-cv-02870-JKB)
Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwight Julius Fulton, Appellant Pro Se. Mushtaq Zakir Gunja,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dwight Julius Fulton seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(West Supp. 2012) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion without prejudice. The orders are not appealable unless
a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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).
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 Fulton 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