US v. Lloyd Maxwell

Filing 920091229

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7321 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LLOYD GEORGE MAXWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:87-cr-00371-MJG-2; 1:09-cv-00114-MJG) Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 29, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lloyd George Maxwell, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lloyd George Maxwell seeks to appeal the district Because court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. that motion directly attacked his conviction, the motion should have been characterized as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion under United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). 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) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 substantial 28 constitutional prisoner reasonable right." this would by 2253(c)(2) by any (2006). satisfies jurists demonstrating assessment is of constitutional claims district court debatable 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 Maxwell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 To the extent that Maxwell's notice of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208. 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 3

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?