US v. Jerrell Casey

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998993355-2] Originating case number: 3:09-cr-00282-JRS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999063795]. [12-7861]

Appeal: 12-7861

Doc: 14

Filed: 03/14/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7861

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERRELL S. CASEY, a/k/a Jerrell Casey, a/k/a Rell,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer; John A.
Gibney, Jr., District Judges. (3:09-cr-00282-JRS-1)

Submitted:

March 11, 2013

Before DAVIS and
Circuit Judge.

WYNN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

March 14, 2013

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy Brian Gordon, GORDON ALVAREZ, Waxahachie, Texas, for
Appellant.
Peter Sinclair Duffey, Gurney Wingate Grant, II,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7861

Doc: 14

Filed: 03/14/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jerrell S. Casey seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders

dismissing

his

28

U.S.C.A.

§ 2255

(West

Supp.

motion as successive and denying reconsideration.

2012)

The orders

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

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.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

Slack

this

McDaniel,

standard

find

that

U.S.

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

Casey

has

not

made

the

requisite

showing.

States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2003).
we

deny

his

motion

dismiss the appeal.

for

a

certificate

of

Cf.

United

Accordingly,

appealability

and

We dispense with oral argument because the
2

Appeal: 12-7861

facts

Doc: 14

and

materials

legal
before

Filed: 03/14/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3