Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07361/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07361-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Randall J. Keystone
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7361

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RANDALL J. KEYSTONE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big 

Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (2:18-cr-00013-JPJ-PMS-1; 2:19-cv-81390-

JPJ)

Submitted: February 18, 2020 Decided: February 21, 2020

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall J. Keystone, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7361 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/21/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Randall J. Keystone seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as 

premature 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 Keystone has not 

made the requisite showing.1

 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal.2

 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

 1 To the extent Keystone’s motion can be construed as a motion to review a pretrial 

detention order, 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) (2018), the denial of which is immediately appealable, 

18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) (2018), Keystone’s conviction and sentence render his challenge moot. 

See Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982) (“It would seem clear that under this general

rule [appellant’s] claim to pretrial bail was moot once he was convicted.”). 

2 Because the district court dismissed Keystone’s § 2255 motion without prejudice 

as premature, he is not precluded from filing a timely § 2255 motion after his convictions 

and sentence become final. 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7361 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/21/2020 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: 19-7361 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/21/2020 Pg: 3 of 3