794 Fed.Appx. 345 (4th Cir. 2020), 19-7243, United States v. Landells

Docket Nº:19-7243
Citation:794 Fed.Appx. 345
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew Wayne LANDELLS, a/k/a Herbert Hill, a/k/a John Watson, a/k/a John Lee, a/k/a Michael Munoz, a/k/a Mark Sierra, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:Andrew Wayne Landells, Appellant Pro Se.
Judge Panel:Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Case Date:February 24, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 345

794 Fed.Appx. 345 (4th Cir. 2020)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Andrew Wayne LANDELLS, a/k/a Herbert Hill, a/k/a John Watson, a/k/a John Lee, a/k/a Michael Munoz, a/k/a Mark Sierra, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-7243

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

February 24, 2020

Submitted: February 20, 2020

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00040-D-1; 5:17-cv-00022-D)

Andrew Wayne Landells, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Wayne Landells seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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) (2018). See generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, __ U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773-74, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41, 132 S.Ct. 641, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Landells has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP