Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07168/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07168-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Damon Emanuel Elliott
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7168

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; 8:15-cv-01892-PJM)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7168 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order construing his “actual innocence” motion as a successive 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. 

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, deny Elliott’s motion for 

the appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal

Appeal: 15-7168 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/20/2015 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: 15-7168 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3