Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-12-07243/USCOURTS-ca4-12-07243-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Maurice Young
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7243

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MAURICE YOUNG, a/k/a Peanut,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Senior District 

Judge. (1:07-cr-00229-BEL-7; 1:10-cv-02281-BEL)

Submitted: August 15, 2013 Decided: January 7, 2014

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Young, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7243 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/07/2014 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Young 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 Young has not made the requisite showing.*

 Accordingly, we 

 * This case was placed in abeyance pending decision in 

Burt v. Titlow, 134 S. Ct. 10 (2013). That decision does not, 

however, call into question the district court’s denial of 

relief.

Appeal: 12-7243 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/07/2014 Pg: 2 of 3
3

deny 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: 12-7243 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/07/2014 Pg: 3 of 3