US v. William Abbott

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998814130-2] Originating case number: 2:07-cr-00214-RGD-JEB-1,2:12-cv-00026-RGD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998900071]. Mailed to: William Abbott. [12-6342]

Appeal: 12-6342

Doc: 17

Filed: 07/23/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6342

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
WILLIAM
RUSSELL
ABBOTT,
a/k/a
Rusty
Abbott,
[e-mail], a/k/a [e-mail]

a/k/a

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:07-cr-00214-JEB-1; 2:12-cv-00026-RGD)

Submitted:

July 19, 2012

Decided:

July 23, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William R. Abbott, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Elaine O’Boyle,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Norfolk,
Virginia,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6342

Doc: 17

Filed: 07/23/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William Russell Abbott seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

dismissing

2012) motion.
justice

or

his

28

U.S.C.A.

§

2255

(West

Supp.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit

judge

issues

a

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

of

appealability.

28

A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

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.

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

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

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.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Abbott has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 12-6342

Doc: 17

Filed: 07/23/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3