US v. Angelo Galloway

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to expedite decision [999159816-2], denying Motion to expedite decision [999139469-2] Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00096-MSD-TEM-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999163871]. Mailed to: Angelo Galloway. [13-4281]

Appeal: 13-4281

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/01/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4281

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANGELO GALLOWAY, a/k/a Gelo,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:10-cr-00096-MSD-TEM-2)

Submitted:

July 15, 2013

Decided:

August 1, 2013

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angelo Galloway,
Assistant
United
Appellee.

Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,
States
Attorney,
Norfolk,
Virginia,
for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4281

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/01/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Angelo

Galloway

appeals

the

district

court

order

denying his motion for release on bond pending the resolution of
his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion.

This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2006),

and

certain

interlocutory

and

collateral

orders,

28

U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial
Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
that

the

order.

district
See,

court’s

e.g.,

Pagan

order
v.

is

United

an

We conclude

appealable

States,

353

collateral
F.3d

1343,

1345-46 & n.4 (11th Cir. 2003) (adopting rule and collecting
cases).
A

prisoner,

however,

still

may

not

appeal

a

final

order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability.
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

We conclude that this requirement applies, as well, to

appealable

collateral

orders

in

post-conviction

proceedings

subject to the certificate of appealability requirement.

See

Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 686 (4th Cir. 2004); see also
Pagan, 353 F.3d at 1346.
not

issue

absent

“a

constitutional right.”

A certificate of appealability will

substantial

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
2

that

reasonable

jurists

would

Appeal: 13-4281

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/01/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

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 Galloway has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
In light of this disposition, we deny as moot Galloway’s motions
to expedite decision.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3