Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06388/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06388-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Kenneth Galloway
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6388

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICHARD KENNETH GALLOWAY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:05-cr-00251-MR-DLH-1; 1:12-cv-00256-MR)

Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 23, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Kenneth Galloway, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, 

Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6388 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Kenneth Galloway seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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)

(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 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 

Galloway 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

Appeal: 15-6388 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6388 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3