US v. Nakie Harris, No. 09-8181 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8181 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAKIE HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00061-JFM-1) Submitted: November 5, 2010 Decided: November 19, 2010 Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nakie Harris, Appellant Pro Se. F. Loucks, Assistant United Maryland, for Appellee. Albert David Copperthite, Allen States Attorneys, Baltimore, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nakie Harris seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent a of appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack, We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. record. legal We also deny Harris s pending motion to seal the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
