US v. Curtis Schoolfield

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6351 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CURTIS L. SCHOOLFIELD, a/k/a Smoosh, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00103-JFM-1; 1:09-cv-01453-JFM) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis L. Schoolfield, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Thiruvendran Vignarajah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Curtis L. Schoolfield seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (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. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude that Slack, We have independently reviewed the record Schoolfield has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability We dispense with oral argument because and dismiss the appeal. the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 2 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3