US v. Jamal Edward Crump

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:06-cr-00007-SGW-1,7:13-cv-80616-SGW-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999221961]. Mailed to: Crump. [13-7278]

Appeal: 13-7278

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/21/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7278

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMAL EDWARD CRUMP,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:06-cr-00007-SGW-1; 7:13-cv-80616-SGW-RSB)

Submitted:

October 17, 2013

Decided: October 21, 2013

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamal Edward Crump, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald Ray Wolthuis,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Roanoke,
Virginia,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7278

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/21/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jamal
court’s

order

Edward

Crump

dismissing

seeks

without

to

appeal

prejudice

the

district

28

U.S.C.A.

his

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion as successive and unauthorized.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

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

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 Crump 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: 13-7278

Doc: 6

contentions

Filed: 10/21/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3