From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Chin

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jun 25, 2010
385 F. App'x 315 (4th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 10-6117.

Submitted: June 17, 2010.

Decided: June 25, 2010.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cr-00552-WDQ-1; 1:09-cv-2317-WDQ).

Jermol Chin, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Jermol Chin seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 21255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Chin's motions for 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Chin

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jun 25, 2010
385 F. App'x 315 (4th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Chin

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermol CHIN…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jun 25, 2010

Citations

385 F. App'x 315 (4th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Premier Comp Solutions, LLC v. Penn Nat'l Ins. Co.

Plaintiff has the burden on this issue and failed to adduce evidence that the misrepresentations in issue for…

Chin v. Watson

Chin repeatedly sought relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without success. United States v. Chin, 385 F.…