Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06723/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06723-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alan B. Fabian
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6723

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALAN B. FABIAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

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

Judge. (1:07-cr-00355-CCB-1; 1:09-cv-02810-CCB)

Submitted: September 29, 2015 Decided: October 2, 2015

Before KING, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alan B. Fabian, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6723 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Alan B. Fabian appeals from the district court’s orders 

denying his motions for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, 

for appointment of counsel, for recusal of the United States 

Attorney’s Office, for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

11(c), for summary judgment, and for reconsideration of the 

above orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The district 

court’s 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 

Fabian has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

Appeal: 15-6723 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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 before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6723 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/02/2015 Pg: 3 of 3