United States v. William Handy, Jr. , 547 F. App'x 201 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4559
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM L. HANDY, JR., a/k/a B,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:04-cr-00559-AW-7; 8:09-cv-02011-AW; 8:13-cv-00477-AW)
Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 25, 2013
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William L. Handy, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William L. Handy, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion for release on bail pending
review of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, in which he seeks
relief from the court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2013) 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) (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.
*
The order is an immediately appealable collateral order.
See Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.
Ct. 1221, 93 L. Ed. 1528 (1949); Pagan v. United States, 353 F.3d
1343, 1345-46 & n.4 (11th Cir. 2003).
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Handy 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
3