US v. Donald Cromwell, Jr., No. 14-7586 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7586 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONALD ELLIOTT CROMWELL, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00401-RDB-1; 1:14-cv-00778-RDB) Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Elliott Cromwell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donald district Elliott court’s Cromwell, order Jr., granting seeks to the request Cromwell’s appeal to voluntarily dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate (2012). of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) 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). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court’s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. Cromwell’s informal brief See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). does not challenge the Because district court’s order, Cromwell has forfeited appellate review of the order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 2 dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
