Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06433/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06433-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Monteze Harmer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6433

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CHARLES MONTEZE HARMER,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. 

(1:03-cr-00216-CCB-1)

Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: June 29, 2010

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Monteze Harmer, Appellant Pro Se. Angela R. White, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-6433 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/29/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Monteze Harmer seeks to appeal the district 

court’s 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 Harmer 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials

Appeal: 09-6433 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/29/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-6433 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/29/2010 Pg: 3 of 3