Court Opinion

ID: 1086160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-10-21 19:03:07.55016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:21.897834
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 13-7278

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JAMAL EDWARD CRUMP,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.    Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:06-cr-00007-SGW-1; 7:13-cv-80616-SGW-RSB)

Submitted:   October 17, 2013             Decided: October 21, 2013

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamal Edward Crump, Appellant Pro Se.    Donald Ray Wolthuis,
Assistant  United  States  Attorney, Roanoke,   Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jamal        Edward   Crump    seeks      to    appeal       the   district

court’s    order     dismissing       without     prejudice       his     28   U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion as successive and unauthorized.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues      a      certificate        of       appealability.             28      U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 Crump 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