United States v. Hartwell , 193 F. App'x 226 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6372
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ERSKINE HARTWELL, a/k/a Pee Wee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
(8:99-cr-00214-DKC-2; 8:05-cv-01183-DKC)
Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: August 1, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Erskine Hartwell, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Stuart A.
Berman, Assistant United States Attorneys, James Marton Trusty,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Erskine Hartwell seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his application for a certificate of
appealability. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). 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 Hartwell 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
*
To the extent Hartwell seeks on appeal to raise claims not
previously presented to the district court, we decline
consideration of such claims.
- 2 -