Court Opinion

ID: 2659156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-04-01 19:14:32.896699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:02.679324
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 14-6099

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

RAYMOND T. HOLLOWAY,

                       Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.     Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00213-REP-1; 3:10-cv-00859-REP)

Submitted:   March 27, 2014                  Decided:    April 1, 2014

Before MOTZ, Circuit    Judge,    and   HAMILTON   and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond T. Holloway, Appellant Pro Se.    Peter Sinclair Duffey,
Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Arlen Jagels, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Tanya H. Powell, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Raymond       T.   Holloway         seeks    to    appeal       the    district

court’s    order     denying      relief   on     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).             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 Holloway 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

                                            2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3