United States v. Cordero Ellis ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6560 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/18/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6560
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CORDERO BERNARD ELLIS, a/k/a Moosey,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (4:08-cr-00144-RBS-5;
4:19-cv-00115-RBS)
Submitted: November 8, 2022 Decided: November 18, 2022
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cordero Bernard Ellis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-6560 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/18/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Cordero Bernard Ellis seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 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). 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). When the district court denies relief on the
merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could 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)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ellis 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
2