United States of America v. Amrik Sing Melhi

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7366
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AMRIK SING MELHI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:10-cr-00637-PJM-2; 8:12-cv-03158-PJM)
Submitted: January 16, 2014 Decided: February 12, 2014
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Amrik Sing Melhi, Appellant Pro Se. Albert David Copperthite,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; James
Andrew Crowell, IV, Sujit Raman, Christen Anne Sproule,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Amrik Sing Melhi 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 Melhi has not made the requisite showing.∗ Accordingly, we
∗ Although we conclude that the district court erred in
treating Melhi’s motion to amend as an unauthorized, successive
§ 2255 motion, Melhi has failed to make a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right on the grounds raised
therein.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --