Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07039/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07039-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Isaac Parker
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7039

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID ISAAC PARKER, a/k/a David Green, a/k/a David Smith, 

a/k/a Jay Smith, a/k/a David Isaac Parker-El,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. 

(8:11-cr-00459-JFM-1; 1:16-cv-00402-JFM)

Submitted: January 5, 2017 Decided: January 17, 2017

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Isaac Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland; Paul Nitze, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Rachel 

E. Timm, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7039 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/17/2017 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

David Isaac Parker seeks to appeal from the district court’s 

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely. 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 

Parker 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

Appeal: 16-7039 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/17/2017 Pg: 2 of 2