United States v. Ryan Lansdowne , 469 F. App'x 234 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7461
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RYAN O’NEIL LANSDOWNE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:00-cr-00185-TSE-1; 1:11-cv-00112-TSE)
Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Ryan O’Neil Lansdowne, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph
Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ryan O’Neil Lansdowne seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders (1) denying his motion for reduction of sentence
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and denying relief on his 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion; and (2) denying his
motion for reconsideration.
We have reviewed the district court’s denial of
Lansdowne’s § 3582(c)(2) motion and his request for
reconsideration and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s orders in part for the reasons
stated by the district court. United States v. Lansdowne, Nos.
1:00-cr-00185-TSE-1; 1:11-cv-00112-TSE (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 4,
2011 & entered Aug. 5, 2011; filed Nov. 8, 2011 & entered Nov.
9, 2011).
To the extent that the district court’s orders address
Lansdowne’s request for § 2255 relief, the orders are 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) (2006). 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
2
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 Lansdowne has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny Lansdowne’s motion for a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal in part. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3