From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Clarke

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 22, 2020
No. 19-6876 (4th Cir. Apr. 22, 2020)

Opinion

No. 19-6876

04-22-2020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SWAIN CLARKE, a/k/a Swain Clark, Defendant - Appellant.

Swain Clarke, Appellant Pro Se.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00503-JKB-1; 1:19-cv-00815-JKB) Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Swain Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Swain Clarke seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 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)).

Here, the district court summarily adopted the reasoning in the Government's response in opposition, offering no independent explanation for denying Clarke's § 2255 motion. While the court should have enumerated the issues raised by Clarke and explained its reasons for denying relief, United States v. Marr, 856 F.2d 1471, 1472-73 (10th Cir. 1998), we were able to conclude through our independent review of the record that Clarke has not made the requisite showing for a certificate of appealability. 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. Clarke

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 22, 2020
No. 19-6876 (4th Cir. Apr. 22, 2020)
Case details for

United States v. Clarke

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SWAIN CLARKE, a/k/a…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 22, 2020

Citations

No. 19-6876 (4th Cir. Apr. 22, 2020)