United States v. Claude Bellamy , 589 F. App'x 214 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED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    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-7467

Citation Numbers: 589 F. App'x 214

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Davis

Filed Date: 1/21/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024