US v. Jermol Chin, No. 10-6117 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6117 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JERMOL CHIN, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cr-00552-WDQ-1; 1:09-cv-2317-WDQ) Submitted: June 17, 2010 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. KING, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 25, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jermol Chin, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jermol Chin seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues on a his absent U.S.C.A. certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue 28 a of § 2255 (West Supp. appealability. 28 2009) 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. and conclude Accordingly, that we Slack, We have independently reviewed the record Chin deny has Chin s not made the requisite motions for a appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 showing. certificate of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.