US v. David Riley
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID ALLEN RILEY, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00023-jpj-mfu-1)
April 3, 2009
April 17, 2009
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Allen Riley, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: David Allen Riley seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion following the Government's motion to dismiss based on a waiver provision in Riley's plea agreement. On appeal, Riley does not contest the validity of the waiver, but rather argues new
evidence supports a § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a
A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or
constitutional prisoner reasonable
right." this would by
§ 2253(c)(2) by any
demonstrating assessment is of
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that because Riley makes no argument on appeal that the district court erred in finding the plea was knowing and voluntary and that his claims are within the scope of the waiver, he has waived appellate review of these claims. 2 Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
Even if Riley
properly pursued these claims on appeal, however, we would find that reasonable jurists would not find the district court's
disposition debatable or wrong. ineffective assistance of
Furthermore, Riley's claim of presented in the first
instance on appeal is barred as it falls within the scope of his waiver of the right to pursue relief pursuant to § 2255. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. See
United States v. Lemaster, 403 F.3d 216, 220 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, and dismiss the appeal. we deny a certificate of appealability
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?