US v. Patrick Plumlee
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PATRICK KIT PLUMLEE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:94-cr-00002-2; 4:07-cv-00049-RAJ)
April 22, 2010
April 28, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick Kit Plumlee, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Patrick Kit Plumlee seeks to appeal the district
court's order construing Plumlee's Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) and dismissing it as successive. justice or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent "a
A certificate of appealability will showing of the denial (2006). 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 Plumlee has not made the of requisite showing. and Accordingly, dismiss the the we deny a We legal
appealability oral argument
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?