United States v. Crandell

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8121
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCUS CRANDELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00414-AMD-1; 1:09-cv-01187-AMD)
Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 26, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Crandell, Appellant Pro Se. Albert David Copperthite,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Crandell seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion to withdraw the mandate and seeking
reconsideration of its order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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)
(2006). 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
Crandell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
deny Crandell’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3