United States v. Angelo Galloway

535 F. App'x 226

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 1, 2013
• Docket: 13-4281
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4281

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ANGELO GALLOWAY, a/k/a Gelo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:10-cr-00096-MSD-TEM-2)

Submitted: July 15, 2013 Decided: August 1, 2013

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angelo Galloway, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Angelo Galloway appeals the district court order

denying his motion for release on bond pending the resolution of

his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial

Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). We conclude

that the district court’s order is an appealable collateral

order. See, e.g., Pagan v. United States, 353 F.3d 1343,

1345-46 & n.4 (11th Cir. 2003) (adopting rule and collecting

cases).

A prisoner, however, still may not appeal a final

order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2006). We conclude that this requirement applies, as well, to

appealable collateral orders in post-conviction proceedings

subject to the certificate of appealability requirement. See

Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 686 (4th Cir. 2004); see also

Pagan, 353 F.3d at 1346. 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

2 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 Galloway has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

In light of this disposition, we deny as moot Galloway’s motions

to expedite decision. 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