LaJoel Rouse v. Eric Wilson ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6715
LAJOEL THEODORE ROUSE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIC D. WILSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:13-cv-00748-GBL-TRJ)
Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
LaJoel T. Rouse, Appellant Pro Se. Ayana Niambi Free, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
LaJoel Theodore Rouse seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)
petition, * construing the petition as a second or successive 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing the motion for lack
of jurisdiction. The district court’s 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 petition 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 Rouse has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
*
The district court properly determined that Rouse could
not proceed with his claims under § 2241. See United States v.
Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008); In re: Jones, 226
F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2000).
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3