US v. Eduado Countess, No. 12-7614 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7614 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDUADO SHAWAN COUNTESS, a/k/a Eduardo Countess, a/k/a Bam, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00232-CCB-2; 1:09-cv-02558-CCB) Submitted: February 21, 2013 Before AGEE and Circuit Judge. DAVIS, Circuit Decided: February 25, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eduado Shawan Countess, Appellant Pro Se. Jason M. Weinstein, OFFICE OF THE UNITED Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Andrea L. Smith, STATES ATTORNEY, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eduado Shawan Countess seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief (West Supp. 2012) motion. on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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). 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 constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. of the 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 right. denial of a constitutional Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Countess has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3