United States v. Cordero Ellis

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States v. Cordero Ellis

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6560 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/18/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6560

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CORDERO BERNARD ELLIS, a/k/a Moosey,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (4:08-cr-00144-RBS-5; 4:19-cv-00115-RBS)

Submitted: November 8, 2022 Decided: November 18, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cordero Bernard Ellis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 20-6560 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/18/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Cordero Bernard Ellis seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment

denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. 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). 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 could find

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 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 Ellis 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 contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished