United States v. James Piccirilli

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6063 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/23/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-6063 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES IAN PICCIRILLI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Matthew James Maddox, District Judge. (1:19-cr-00060-MJM-1; 1:24-cv-00590-MJM) Submitted: June 17, 2025 Decided: June 23, 2025 Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and BERNER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Ian Piccirilli, Appellant Pro Se. David Christian Bornstein, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6063 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/23/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: James Ian Piccirilli seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 Piccirilli has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Piccirilli’s motion for 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