Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06504/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06504-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Damon Emanuel Elliott
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6504

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1)

Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Slaymaker 

Sale, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6504 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his motion for a certificate of 

appealability in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 

proceedings. 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 Elliott has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

Elliott’s motion for transcript at government expense, and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 10-6504 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6504 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/28/2010 Pg: 3 of 3