United States v. Handy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7553
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM L. HANDY, JR., a/k/a B,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-7554
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM L. HANDY, JR., a/k/a B,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals 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)
Submitted: March 14, 2011 Decided: March 24, 2011
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
William Handy, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2010) motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“Rule 59(e)”)
motion for reconsideration, as well as its correspondence
returning Handy’s motion to recuse the district court judge
because the motion was received after his case was closed.
An order dismissing a motion under § 2255 is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).
The same is true as to an attempt to appeal an order denying
reconsideration of an order denying § 2255 relief. See Reid v.
Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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
3
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 Handy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss appeal number
10-7554. We also dismiss Handy’s appeal in number 10-7553 from
the district court’s correspondence returning his late motion to
recuse. A letter is not an appealable judgment or order, see
Fed. R. App. P. 3(a), 4(a), and in any event, Handy has not made
a showing of extra judicial bias in this case.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
4