US v. Andrew Malcolm

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying certificate of appealability Originating case number: 2:08-cr-00232-DCN-1,2:12-cv-00079-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999307800]. [13-7511]

Appeal: 13-7511

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/04/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7511

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANDREW JEROME MALCOLM,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:08-cr-00232-DCN-1)

Submitted:

February 27, 2014

Decided:

March 4, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew McGavock Robinson, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington,
Kentucky, for Appellant.
Nathan S. Williams, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7511

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/04/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Andrew
court’s
motion.
judge

order

Jerome

denying

relief

seeks

on

to

his

28

appeal
U.S.C.

the

district

§ 2255

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

Malcolm

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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 Malcolm 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: 13-7511

Doc: 13

contentions

are

Filed: 03/04/2014

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3