Opinion
No. 16-7609
05-03-2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WALTER LLOYD BLAIR, Defendant - Appellant.
Walter Lloyd Blair, Appellant Pro Se. James Andrew Crowell, IV, Christian Jacques Nauvel, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:08-cr-00505-PJM-1; 8:14-cv-00766-PJM ) Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Lloyd Blair, Appellant Pro Se. James Andrew Crowell, IV, Christian Jacques Nauvel, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Walter Lloyd Blair seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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) (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 Blair has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Blair's motion to file an oversized brief, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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