Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06144/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06144-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Craig Arnold Scott
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6144

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CRAIG ARNOLD SCOTT, a/k/a Craig Levi,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:04-cr-00235-RWT-18)

Submitted: August 24, 2015 Decided: August 27, 2015

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig Arnold Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Kenneth Ake, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Bonnie S. Greenberg, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Mara Zusman 

Greenberg, Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States

Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6144 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Craig Arnold Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as an 

unauthorized, successive motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(e) motion. These orders are 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 

Scott 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: 15-6144 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/27/2015 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: 15-6144 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/27/2015 Pg: 3 of 3