Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06061/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06061-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Pyne
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6061

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

CHARLES PYNE, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District 

Judge. (8:04-cr-00018-DKC-3) 

Submitted: August 10, 2015 Decided: December 11, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Charles Pyne, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 15-6061 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/11/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Charles Pyne seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his July 23, 2014 motion for reconsideration of the 

court’s August 30, 2007 order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012) motion and March 27, 2014 order denying his Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) 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 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 

Pyne 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: 15-6061 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/11/2015 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: 15-6061 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/11/2015 Pg: 3 of 3