US v. Damon Elliott, No. 12-8111 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8111 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1; 8:12-cv-03289-PJM) Submitted: February 21, 2013 Before AGEE and Circuit Judge. DAVIS, Circuit Decided: Judges, and February 26, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Jay Tenpas, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. 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. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must 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 Elliott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with legal contentions oral are argument adequately 2 because presented the in the facts and materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3