Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07243/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07243-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andrew Wayne Landells
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7243

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANDREW WAYNE LANDELLS, a/k/a Herbert Hill, a/k/a John Watson, a/k/a John 

Lee, a/k/a Michael Munoz, a/k/a Mark Sierra,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00040-D-1; 5:17-cv-00022-D)

Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: February 24, 2020

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Wayne Landells, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7243 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/24/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Wayne Landells seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his 

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

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

United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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 Landells 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7243 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/24/2020 Pg: 2 of 2