Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06209/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06209-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6209

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PATRICK KIT PLUMLEE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, 

District Judge. (4:94-cr-00002-2; 4:07-cv-00049-RAJ)

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Kit Plumlee, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, Stephen 

Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6209 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Kit Plumlee seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order construing Plumlee's Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) and dismissing it 

as successive. The order is 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). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Plumlee 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 before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6209 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 2