US v. Scott Luellen

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998751714-2]. Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00102-LO-1,1:09-cv-00681-LO. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998824501]. Mailed to: Scott Luellen. [11-7648]

Appeal: 11-7648

Document: 16

Date Filed: 04/03/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7648

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SCOTT E. LUELLEN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00102-LO-1; 1:09-cv-00681-LO)

Submitted:

March 29, 2012

Decided:

April 3, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott E. Luellen, Appellant Pro Se.
Derek Andreson, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7648

Document: 16

Date Filed: 04/03/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Scott E. Luellen seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for reconsideration, under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b)(1), of the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion.

The order is not

appealable

judge

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A certificate

of

justice

or

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Luellen has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny Luellen’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the
2

Appeal: 11-7648

facts

Document: 16

and

materials

legal
before

Date Filed: 04/03/2012

Page: 3 of 3

contentions

are

adequately

the

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3