United States v. Maxwell

390 F. App'x 229

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7330

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

LLOYD GEORGE MAXWELL,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:93-cr-00262-1)

Submitted: July 14, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lloyd George Maxwell, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Lloyd George Maxwell seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying his motions in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2010) proceedings to amend his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

motion, and for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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

Maxwell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

further deny Maxwell’s motion to dismiss his original indictment

and his “Nunc Pro Tunc Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(2) Supplemental

2 Motion for Recall of Mandate to Amend his Rule 33 Motion and

Informal Brief.” 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.

DISMISSED