Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07586/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07586-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7586

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DONALD ELLIOTT CROMWELL, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:08-cr-00401-RDB-1; 1:14-cv-00778-RDB)

Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Elliott Cromwell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. 

Rosenstein, United States Attorney, James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7586 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Elliott Cromwell, Jr., seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order granting Cromwell’s request to 

voluntarily dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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. 

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised 

in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because 

Cromwell’s informal brief does not challenge the district 

court’s order, Cromwell has forfeited appellate review of the 

order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

Appeal: 14-7586 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 14-7586 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 3 of 3