Court Opinion

ID: 223007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-08-11 19:22:51+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:16.115550
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 11-6371

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

AYANDE YEARWOOD,

                Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.    Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:05-cr-00105-RDB-1; 1:09-cv-02809-RDB)

Submitted:   July 20, 2011                 Decided:   August 11, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Aaron Allen, HODES, PESSIN & KATZ, PA, Towson, Maryland,
for Appellant. Paul Michael Cunningham, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Ayande Yearwood seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)

motion and has moved for appointment of counsel.                         The district

court’s order denying relief is not appealable unless a circuit

justice   or     judge   issues     a   certificate       of   appealability.        28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).                   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) (2006).               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 Yearwood has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,       we    deny    Yearwood’s        motion      for     appointment    of

counsel, 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

                                             2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3