US v. James Bostic, No. 12-7838 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7838 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES BOSTIC, a/k/a Jimmy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00333-WDQ-4; 1:11-cv-03131-WDQ) Submitted: February 27, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Bostic, Appellant Pro Se. James Thomas Wallner, Assistant United States Attorney, Peter Marshall Nothstein, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Bostic seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). issue absent a of appealability. U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. 28 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bostic has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3