US v. James Schimmel

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999448089-2], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00494-LO-1,1:14-cv-00550-LO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999499196]. Mailed to: James Schimmel. [14-7384]

Appeal: 14-7384

Doc: 17

Filed: 12/23/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7384

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES RAYMOND SCHIMMEL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:12-cr-00494-LO-1; 1:14-cv-00550-LO)

Submitted:

December 18, 2014

Decided:

December 23, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Raymond Schimmel, Appellant Pro Se.
Catherine Sun Ahn,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexander T. H.
Nguyen,
Karen
Ledbetter
Taylor,
Assistant
United
States
Attorneys, Ryan K. Dickey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7384

Doc: 17

Filed: 12/23/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James Raymond Schimmel seeks to appeal the district
court’s
motion.
judge

order

denying

on

his

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

relief

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 Schimmel has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny Schimmel’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 14-7384

Doc: 17

materials

before

Filed: 12/23/2014

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3