Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07947/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07947-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7947

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; 8:15-cv-03523-PJM)

Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 26, 2016

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Eyler Kaplan,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7947 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/26/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as successive 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 

Elliott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Elliott’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 15-7947 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/26/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7947 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/26/2016 Pg: 3 of 3