Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07165/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07165-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Byron Mitchell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7165

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BYRON MITCHELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge; Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:11-cr00525-PJM-1; 8:13-cv-01551-PJM)

Submitted: April 17, 2015 Decided: April 24, 2015

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Byron Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Eyler Kaplan, Sujit 

Raman, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7165 Doc: 22 Filed: 04/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Byron Mitchell 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). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Mitchell 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 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

 * To the extent Mitchell also seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, he has 

forfeited appellate review of that order by failing to challenge 

in his informal appellate brief the reasons for the denial. See

4th Cir. R. 34(b). 

Appeal: 14-7165 Doc: 22 Filed: 04/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 2