US v. Angelo Galloway
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00096-MSD-TEM-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Everhart, Galloway. [15-6324]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
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
September 14, 2015
Before SHEDD and
September 16, 2015
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Angelo Galloway, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto,
Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 5
Angelo Galloway appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion for recusal and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion
seeking relief from its judgment denying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
relief, as well as the court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) motion seeking to alter or amend the order denying Rule
district court’s orders.
certificate of appealability (COA).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
Generally, a COA is required to appeal an order denying
a Rule 60(b) motion in a § 2255 proceeding.
Reid v. Angelone,
clarified, however, that a COA is not required in the limited
circumstance in which the district court dismisses a Rule 60(b)
motion as an unauthorized, successive habeas petition.
States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2015).
To file a successive § 2255 motion in the district court, a
prisoner must first obtain preauthorization from this court.
U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h) (2012).
Although a prisoner is
discretion to rule on a Rule 60(b) motion that is functionally
Pg: 3 of 5
States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2003).
Rule 60(b) motion “challenges some defect in the integrity of
the federal habeas proceedings,” it is a true Rule 60(b) motion
and may be reviewed without preauthorization.
McRae, 793 F.3d
principles, we conclude the § 2253(c) COA requirement does not
apply to this appeal.
denial of a Rule 59(e) or a Rule 60(b) motion.
Nat’l Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378
(4th Cir. 2012) (Rule 59(e)); MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S.
Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008) (Rule 60(b)).
review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a
United States v. Whorley, 550 F.3d 326, 339
(4th Cir. 2008).
As the district court properly concluded, Galloway’s Rule
60(b) motion seeking relief from the district court’s § 2255
judgment is the functional equivalent of a successive § 2255
motion, and the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider
challenging the dismissal of his Rule 60(b) motion and repeating
Pg: 4 of 5
successive § 2255 motion and therefore properly dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.
district court’s treatment of a pro se ethics grievance filed
against the prosecutor in his criminal case, those arguments are
Galloway’s informal brief are based on the same allegations of
prosecutorial misconduct that have been rejected by the district
court and this court.
Galloway’s refusal to accept the courts’
rulings on these claims is not a valid basis for postjudgment
judge’s adverse rulings and status as a defendant in Galloway’s
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
judge’s opinions formed during the current or prior proceedings
are not grounds for recusal “unless they display a deep-seated
United States v. Lentz, 524 F.3d 501, 530 (4th
evidence of such antagonism or partiality by the district judge.
Pg: 5 of 5
993-94 (10th Cir. 1993).
Thus, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Galloway’s recusal motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?