Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07330/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07330-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lloyd George Maxwell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7330

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

LLOYD GEORGE MAXWELL,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (1:93-cr-00262-1)

Submitted: July 14, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lloyd George Maxwell, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump,

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7330 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/05/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Lloyd George Maxwell seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying his motions in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2010) proceedings to amend his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) 

motion, and for reconsideration. The orders are 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). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Maxwell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

further deny Maxwell’s motion to dismiss his original indictment 

and his “Nunc Pro Tunc Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(2) Supplemental 

Appeal: 09-7330 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/05/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Motion for Recall of Mandate to Amend his Rule 33 Motion and 

Informal Brief.” 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: 09-7330 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/05/2010 Pg: 3 of 3