United States v. Damon Elliott , 684 F. App'x 279 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6062
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1; 8:16-cv-03825-PJM)
Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 4, 2017
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Eyler Kaplan,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as
successive and unauthorized. 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
Elliott 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