Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07722/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07722-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonathan Cornish
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7722

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JONATHAN CORNISH,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:07-cr-00604-RDB-1; 1:13-cv-03119-RDB)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Cornish, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United 

States Attorney, John Francis Purcell, Jr., Assistant United 

States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7722 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Cornish seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing as untimely 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 the informal 

appellate brief and conclude that Cornish has not made the 

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 14-7722 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7722 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3