US v. David Harris, No. 13-6125 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6125 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID M. HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00115-BEL-3; 1:10-cv-03657-BEL) Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013 Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David M. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Assistant United States Attorney, Appellee. Christopher John Romano, Baltimore, Maryland, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David M. Harris seeks to appeal the district court s order granting in part, and denying in part, relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice The order is not or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, Slack this 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. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris 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