Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07460/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07460-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Randy Lindial Quattlebaum
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7460

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RANDY LINDIAL QUATTLEBAUM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-21; 3:08-cv-70105-CMC)

Submitted: May 24, 2010 Decided: June 3, 2010

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy Lindial Quattlebaum, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett 

Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7460 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/03/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Randy Lindial Quattlebaum seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. 

These 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 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 Quattlebaum 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 

Appeal: 09-7460 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/03/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7460 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/03/2010 Pg: 3 of 3