Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07617/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07617-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Damon Emanuel Elliott
Appellant
Eric Wilson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7617

DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIC WILSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-01016-LO-IDD)

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

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7617 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district 

court’s dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)

petition, which the district court construed as a successive 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 petition 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 Elliott’s motion for a certificate of appealability, 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 14-7617 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/02/2015 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: 14-7617 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 3 of 3