United States of America v. Marcel J. Toto-Ngosso

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7337
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCEL J. TOTO-NGOSSO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge.
(8:08-cr-00179-RWT-1)
Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcel J. Toto-Ngosso, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Phillip Cihlar,
Gregory Victor Davis, Alexander Patrick Robbins, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Marcel J. Toto-Ngosso seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 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) (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).
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 Toto-Ngosso 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --