US v. Keyston West

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:00-cr-00006-JPB-JES-2,3:05-cv-00103-JPB-JES,3:00-cr-00046-JPB-JES-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998673724]. Mailed to: Keystone Jamory West. [10-6322, 11-6400]

Appeal: 10-6322

Document: 21

Date Filed: 09/09/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6322

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEYSTON JAMORY WEST, a/k/a D, a/k/a Alonzo Green, a/k/a DMan,
Defendant – Appellant.

No. 11-6400

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEYSTON JAMORY WEST, a/k/a D, a/k/a Alonzo Green, a/k/a DMan,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge.
(3:00-cr-00006-JPB-JES-2; 3:00-cr-00046JPB-JES-2: 3:05-cv-00103-JPB-JES)

Submitted:

August 30, 2011

Decided:

September 9, 2011

Appeal: 10-6322

Document: 21

Date Filed: 09/09/2011

Page: 2 of 4

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keyston Jamory West, Appellant Pro Se.
Thomas Oliver Mucklow,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 10-6322

Document: 21

Date Filed: 09/09/2011

Page: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In No. 10-6322, Keyston Jamory West seeks to appeal
the district court’s orders (1) accepting the recommendation of
the

magistrate

judge

and

denying

relief

on

his

28

U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion; and (2) denying his motion for
reconsideration.
justice

or

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

judge

issues

a

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).
not

issue

absent

“a

appealability.

28

A certificate of appealability will

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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.
484

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
Cockrell,

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
and

conclude

that

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record
West

has

not

made

the

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.

3

Appeal: 10-6322

Document: 21

Date Filed: 09/09/2011

Page: 4 of 4

In. No. 11-6400, West seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

denying

his

motion

for

a

certificate

appealability with respect to his § 2255 motion.

of

We conclude,

in light of our disposition in No. 10-6322, that the appeal is
moot.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED

4