Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06117/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06117-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jermol Chin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6117

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JERMOL CHIN,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:06-cr-00552-WDQ-1; 1:09-cv-2317-WDQ)

Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 25, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermol Chin, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States 

Attorney, Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6117 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/25/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jermol Chin seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) 

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 Chin has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Chin’s motions for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

Appeal: 10-6117 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/25/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6117 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/25/2010 Pg: 3 of 3