US v. Damon Elliott, No. 14-7382 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7382 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT, Defendant -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; 8:14-cv-02732-PJM; 8:14-cv-02742PJM) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Sujit Raman, Assistant United States Maryland, for Appellee. Lindsay Eyler Kaplan, Attorneys, Greenbelt, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) and his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2012), of or issues § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a 2255 appealability. (2012) 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” § court The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice of U.S.C. district motions. certificate 28 the construed a successive which properly judge as both showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 Elliott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3