Court Opinion

ID: 814337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-12-26 20:38:56+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:57.721860
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 12-7253

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JONATHAN CYLEAR,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.    Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:09-cr-00587-RDB-1; 1:10-cv-02075-RDB)

Submitted:   December 20, 2012            Decided:   December 26, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Cylear, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Marie Celeste, Ayn
Brigoli Ducao, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jonathan Cylear seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 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) (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 Cylear has not made the requisite showing.                   Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                       We

deny Cylear’s motion for an extension of time and dispense with

oral    argument     because    the     facts    and   legal   contentions        are

                                          2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   the   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                    3