United States of America v. Jamerson Devoir Tillman

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7897
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMERSON DEVOIR TILLMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-7902
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES TILLMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:00-cr-00137-DKC-1; 8:14-cv-03314-DKC; 8:00-cr-00137-
DKC-2; 8:14-cv-03315-DKC)
Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 21, 2015

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamerson Devoir Tillman and James Tillman, Appellants Pro Se.
Michael Thomas Packard, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Jamerson Devoir Tillman and James Tillman seek to appeal
from the district court’s orders dismissing their 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motions as successive. The orders are 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 records and conclude
that the Tillmans have not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss
the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

-- 3 of 4 --

4
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 4 of 4 --