Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07811/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07811-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lionel Holloway
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7811

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

LIONEL HOLLOWAY, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00363-ELH-1; 1:19-cv-02243-ELH) 

Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: February 25, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Lionel Holloway, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7811 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Lionel Holloway seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 

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) (2018). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. 

See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Holloway 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

 * Holloway’s § 2255 motion sought to challenge his September 2010 criminal 

judgment in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 

2191 (2019). Holloway may seek authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255 

motion based on Rehaif. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2). 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7811 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7811 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2020 Pg: 3 of 3