From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Settles

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Sep 27, 2013
540 F. App'x 172 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 13-6785

2013-09-27

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FERNANDO ALEXANDER SETTLES, Defendant - Appellant.

Fernando Alexander Settles, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00348-WDQ-4; 1:12-cv-01050-WDQ) Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fernando Alexander Settles, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Fernando Alexander Settles seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) 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) (2006). 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 Settles 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. Settles

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Sep 27, 2013
540 F. App'x 172 (4th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Settles

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FERNANDO ALEXANDER…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Sep 27, 2013

Citations

540 F. App'x 172 (4th Cir. 2013)