Court Opinion

ID: 4227153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-12-08 20:00:26.424817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:55.318070
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6921

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

JUSTIN DEONTA STROM, a/k/a Jae Dee, a/k/a Jae, a/k/a J-Dirt,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cr-000159-JCC-1; 1:15-cv-
00632-JCC)

Submitted: November 28, 2017                                 Decided: December 8, 2017

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Justin Deonta Strom, Appellant Pro Se. Marc Birnbaum, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Inayat Delawala, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Following our prior decision remanding this matter for further proceedings, see

United States v. Strom, 688 F. App’x 233 (4th Cir. 2017), the district court granted Justin

Deonta Strom’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment in his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2012) proceeding, reconsidered two claims previously raised in Strom’s § 2255

motion, and denied those claims on the merits. Strom seeks to appeal this order, which 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 Strom 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

                                              2