US v. Damon Elliott, No. 19-7376 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7376 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT, Defendant -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; 8:19-cv-02309-PJM) Submitted: November 21, 2019 Decided: November 26, 2019 Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion because he did not receive authorization from this court. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Elliott has not made the requisite showing. In the absence of prefiling authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Elliott’s motion to vacate the judgment, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
