United States v. Rico Joy

585 F. App'x 33
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 22, 2014
Docket14-7276
StatusUnpublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 585 F. App'x 33 (United States v. Rico Joy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Rico Joy, 585 F. App'x 33 (4th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rico Jaruiase Joy seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Joy has not made the requisite showing. The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Joy’s motion to vacate because it was a successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion. In the absence of pre-filing authorization from this court, the district court lacks jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). 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 before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pifer v. State of West Virginia
S.D. West Virginia, 2025
Lind v. Ames
S.D. West Virginia, 2024
Morgan v. Ballard
S.D. West Virginia, 2022
Smith v. United States
S.D. West Virginia, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
585 F. App'x 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rico-joy-ca4-2014.