Court Opinion

ID: 801644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-06-05 19:00:31+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:43.460905
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 11-7194

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MARK E. PHILLIPS, a/k/a Mark L. Aaron,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:05-cr-00165-JFM-1; 1:11-cv-00478-JFM)

Submitted:   May 31, 2012                  Decided:   June 5, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark E. Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, Allen
F.   Loucks,  Assistant  United  States Attorneys,  Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Mark E. Phillips seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

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) (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 Phillips 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

                                           2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3