US v. Reginald Waddell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999117080-2]. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00435-LO-1, 1:12-cv-00689-LO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999181310].. [13-6700]

Appeal: 13-6700

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/27/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6700

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD ARNOLD WADDELL, a/k/a Chippy,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00435-LO-1; 1:12-cv-00689-LO)

Submitted:

August 22, 2013

Decided:

August 27, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Arnold Waddell, Appellant Pro Se.
Neil Harvey
MacBride, United States Attorney, Michael Edward Rich, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6700

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/27/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Reginald Arnold Waddell seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2013) motion and has filed a motion for a certificate of
appealability.
unless

a

The district court’s order is not appealable

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

judge

issues

a

certificate

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

of

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 Waddell has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 13-6700

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 08/27/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3