United States v. Reggie Deloach , 445 F. App'x 670 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6520
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGGIE DELOACH, a/k/a Intell Abrams,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:98-cr-00323-REP-1; 3:11-cv-00184-REP)
Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 30, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reggie DeLoach, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Rae McKeel, Assistant
United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reggie DeLoach seeks to appeal the district court’s
order construing his motion for immediate release from custody
as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2011) motion and dismissing it on that basis. 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) (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
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 DeLoach 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
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3