US v. Al-Lain Norman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999006591-2] Originating case number: 2:08-cr-00034-RGD-FBS-1,2:11-cv-00545-RGD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999019366]. Mailed to: appellant. [12-7357]

Appeal: 12-7357

Doc: 10

Filed: 01/10/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7357

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AL-LAIN DELONT NORMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:08-cr-00034-RGD-FBS-1)

Submitted:

January 2, 2013

Decided:

January 10, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Al-Lain Delont Norman, Appellant Pro Se.
Kevin Michael
Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Damian J. Hansen,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7357

Doc: 10

Filed: 01/10/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Delont

seeks

PER CURIAM:
Al-Lain

Norman

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp.

2012)

motion.

The

order

is

not

appealable

unless

a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2006).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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 Norman has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We

deny

We

Norman’s

dispense

with

motion
oral

to

place

argument

this

appeal

because

2

the

in

abeyance.

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 12-7357

Doc: 10

contentions

are

Filed: 01/10/2013

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3