From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Clark

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Mar 16, 2015
597 F. App'x 168 (4th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 14-7576

03-16-2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TYRONE CLARK, Defendant - Appellant.

Tyrone Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:91-cr-00310-JFM-1; 1:14-cv-01899-JFM) Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Clark seeks to appeal from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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. 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 Clark 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


Summaries of

United States v. Clark

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Mar 16, 2015
597 F. App'x 168 (4th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Clark

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TYRONE CLARK, Defendant…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 16, 2015

Citations

597 F. App'x 168 (4th Cir. 2015)