United States v. Eduado Countess

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Eduado Countess, 526 F. App'x 223 (4th Cir. 2013)

United States v. Eduado Countess

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7614

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDUADO SHAWAN COUNTESS, a/k/a Eduardo Countess, a/k/a Bam,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00232-CCB-2; 1:09-cv-02558-CCB)

Submitted: February 21, 2013 Decided: February 25, 2013

Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eduado Shawan Countess, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea L. Smith, Jason M. Weinstein, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Eduado Shawan Countess 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 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.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(2).

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

(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 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 Countess has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished