Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06966/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06966-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shawn F. Engle
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6966

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

SHAWN F. ENGLE, a/k/a Shawn Forrest Engle, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior 

District Judge. (2:09-cr-00070-RGD-FBS-1; 2:13-cv-00557-RGD) 

Submitted: November 24, 2014 Decided: January 14, 2015

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Shawn F. Engle, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, 

Katherine Lee Martin, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Richmond, Virginia; Robert John Krask, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 14-6966 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/14/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Shawn F. Engle seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on 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). 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 Engle 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

Appeal: 14-6966 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/14/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-6966 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/14/2015 Pg: 3 of 3