United States v. Daren Gadsden ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6257
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAREN KAREEM GADSDEN, a/k/a D,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:11-cr-00302-CCB-3; 1:15-cv-01965-CCB)
Submitted: May 26, 2016 Decided: June 1, 2016
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daren Kareem Gadsden, Appellant Pro Se. Sujit Raman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, Rod J. Rosenstein,
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daren Kareem Gadsden seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
he has filed a motion to disqualify the United States Attorney,
as well as a self-styled “writ of error[.]” The district
court’s 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
Gadsden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Gadsden’s motion to disqualify the United States Attorney,
deny his writ of error, deny a certificate of appealability, and
2
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