United States v. Jamal Edward Crump , 548 F. App'x 905 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7482
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-RSB-1; 7:13-cv-80632-SGW-RSB)
Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013
Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 self-styled
“Motion to Withdraw Plea,” which the court construed as a
successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)
motion and dismissed on that basis. 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