Court Opinion

ID: 4231771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-12-22 20:00:24.975125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:59.358433
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6883

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

WILSON LEE GARRETT, JR.,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:09-cr-00265-PJM-1; 8:14-cv-01599-PJM)

Submitted: December 15, 2017                                Decided: December 22, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilson Lee Garrett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Andrew Crowell, IV, Ray Daniel
McKenzie, Assistant United States Attorneys, John Michael Pellettieri, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Wilson Lee Garrett, Jr., 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 Garrett has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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