United States of America v. Eugene R. Lewandowski

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7161
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EUGENE R. LEWANDOWSKI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:14-cr-00082-DKC-1; 8:16-cv-03421-
DKC)
Submitted: May 2, 2019 Decided: May 16, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene R. Lewandowski, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Eugene R. Lewandowski 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 Lewandowski has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lewandowski’s motion for 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

-- 2 of 2 --