Court Opinion

ID: 3187269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-21 19:02:48.391626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:09:05.037982
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 15-7392

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JOHN FRANCIS WASHINGTON,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:11-cr-00380-RWT-1; 8:13-cv-01893-RWT)

Submitted:   March 17, 2016                 Decided:   March 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Francis Washington, Appellant Pro Se.     Jonathan Falk
Lenzner, INVESTIGATIVE GROUP INTERNATIONAL, Washington, DC;
Nicolas A. Mitchell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greenbelt, Maryland; Paul Nitze, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       John    Francis       Washington     seeks       to    appeal       the    district

court’s    order      denying    relief     on    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 conclude that

Washington 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

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3