United States v. Alan Fabian ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6723
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALAN B. FABIAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:07-cr-00355-CCB-1; 1:09-cv-02810-CCB)
Submitted: September 29, 2015 Decided: October 2, 2015
Before KING, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan B. Fabian, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alan B. Fabian appeals from the district court’s orders
denying his motions for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60,
for appointment of counsel, for recusal of the United States
Attorney’s Office, for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
11(c), for summary judgment, and for reconsideration of the
above orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The district
court’s orders are 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
Fabian has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
2
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3