United States v. Richard Lighty , 459 F. App'x 259 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-6972
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    RICHARD LAMONT LIGHTY, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Young, a/k/a
    Richard Dock, a/k/a Bro, a/k/a Richard Duck, a/k/a Melvin,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.    Samuel G. Wilson, District
    Judge. (7:04-cr-00072-SGW-mfu-1; 7:11-cv-80334-SGW)
    Submitted:   December 20, 2011            Decided:   December 23, 2011
    Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Richard Lamont Lighty, Appellant Pro Se.    Donald Ray Wolthuis,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Rick A. Mountcastle, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Richard       Lamont       Lighty      seeks     to     appeal          the    district
    court’s    order       denying       his    Fed.       R.    Civ.     P.    60(b)       motion        for
    reconsideration            of   prior       orders          denying        relief       on     his    
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 2011) 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
    .          We     have    independently            reviewed           the    record        and
    conclude       that    Lighty        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
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-6972

Citation Numbers: 459 F. App'x 259

Judges: Motz, Duncan, Diaz

Filed Date: 12/23/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024