United States v. Under Seal , 688 F. App'x 197 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6713
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
UNDER SEAL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00056-JKB-1; 1:14-cv-02986-JKB)
Submitted: April 20, 2017 Decided: May 4, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Under Seal, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion and other motions challenging the validity of his conviction and
sentence. To the extent Appellant seeks to appeal the denial of relief on his § 2255
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 the district
court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 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 Appellant has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal as to the denial of § 2255 relief.
Appellant also appeals the denial of his motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 seeking
a new trial, motion for a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), and
motion seeking a reduction in his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court properly denied relief.
See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973) (holding guilty plea waives all
2
antecedent nonjurisdictional defects); United States v. Spaulding, 802 F.3d 1110, 1125
n.20 (10th Cir. 2015) (“The provisions of Rule 33 do not apply to convictions obtained
by guilty plea.”), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1206 (2016); United States v. Williams, 808
F.3d 253, 257 (4th Cir. 2015) (“[A] sentence reduction is not authorized unless [a
retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines] has the effect of lowering the
defendant's applicable guideline range.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of these motions. In light of this
disposition, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny Appellant’s motions
for appointment of counsel, for preparation of a transcript at government expense, to
compel the government to file a responsive brief, to remand his case, and for leave to file
future supplemental materials. 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3