Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07585/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07585-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Foreman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7585

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL FOREMAN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. 

(1:11-cr-00398-JKB-1, 1:15-cv-01258-JKB)

Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 1, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Foreman, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin M. Block, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Henry Brandis Marsh, Jr., Special 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7585 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Foreman seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 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 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 

Foreman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Foreman’s motion for 

an order directing the district court to explain the sentence,

and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 15-7585 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7585 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 3