Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07467/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07467-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Claude Wendell Bellamy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7467

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLAUDE WENDELL BELLAMY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (7:99-cr-00049-F-1, 7:03-cv-00024-F)

Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claude Wendell Bellamy, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7467 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Claude Wendell Bellamy seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order construing his motion to dismiss the indictment as 

a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and 

dismissing it for lack of authorization from this court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2012). The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) 

(2012). 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Bellamy 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

Appeal: 14-7467 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 2