US v. Angelo Galloway
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00096-MSD-TEM-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999661035]. Mailed to: Everhart, Galloway. [15-6324]
Appeal: 15-6324
Doc: 9
Filed: 09/16/2015
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6324
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
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
Judge. (2:10-cr-00096-MSD-TEM-2)
Submitted:
September 14, 2015
Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.
DUNCAN,
Circuit
Decided:
Judges,
September 16, 2015
and
DAVIS,
Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-6324
Doc: 9
Filed: 09/16/2015
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
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
60(b)
relief.
For
the
reasons
that
follow,
we
affirm
the
district court’s orders.
A
prisoner
proceeding
cannot
unless
a
appeal
a
circuit
final
justice
certificate of appealability (COA).
(2012).
order
or
judge
F.3d
a
§ 2255
issues
a
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.
369
in
363,
369
(4th
Cir.
2004).
Reid v. Angelone,
This
court
recently
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.
United
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).
permitted
judgment
to
in
seek
a
Rule
§ 2255
60(b)
relief
proceeding,
“a
28
Although a prisoner is
from
a
district
district
court
court’s
has
no
discretion to rule on a Rule 60(b) motion that is functionally
2
Appeal: 15-6324
Doc: 9
equivalent
to
Filed: 09/16/2015
a
successive
Pg: 3 of 5
[§ 2255]
application.”
States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2003).
United
Where a
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.
at
397
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
McRae, 793 F.3d
Applying
these
principles, we conclude the § 2253(c) COA requirement does not
apply to this appeal.
We
review
for
abuse
of
discretion
the
district
denial of a Rule 59(e) or a Rule 60(b) motion.
court’s
Mayfield v.
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)).
We also
review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a
recusal motion.
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
it.
Similarly,
the
portion
of
Galloway’s
Rule
59(e)
motion
challenging the dismissal of his Rule 60(b) motion and repeating
his
challenges
to
his
criminal
3
judgment
was
equivalent
to
a
Appeal: 15-6324
Doc: 9
Filed: 09/16/2015
Pg: 4 of 5
successive § 2255 motion and therefore properly dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.
Insofar
as
Galloway’s
Rule
59(e)
motion
challenged
the
district court’s treatment of a pro se ethics grievance filed
against the prosecutor in his criminal case, those arguments are
not
properly
proceeding.
raised
in
a
Moreover,
postjudgment
the
ethics
motion
complaints
in
his
§ 2255
addressed
in
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
relief.
Galloway
based
his
demand
for
recusal
on
the
district
judge’s adverse rulings and status as a defendant in Galloway’s
42
U.S.C.
§ 1983
prosecution.
constitute
(2012)
However,
a
valid
action
“judicial
basis
for
a
related
rulings
bias
or
to
alone
his
criminal
almost
partiality
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
never
motion.”
Rather, a
judge’s opinions formed during the current or prior proceedings
are not grounds for recusal “unless they display a deep-seated
favoritism
impossible.”
Cir.
2008)
or
antagonism
that
would
make
fair
judgment
United States v. Lentz, 524 F.3d 501, 530 (4th
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
We
find
no
evidence of such antagonism or partiality by the district judge.
4
Appeal: 15-6324
Nor
Doc: 9
does
judge’s
Filed: 09/16/2015
Galloway’s
recusal.
Pg: 5 of 5
unsuccessful
See
993-94 (10th Cir. 1993).
United
§ 1983
States
v.
action
Cooley,
require
1
F.3d
the
985,
Thus, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Galloway’s recusal motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
deny
Galloway’s
transcripts.
request
for
in
camera
review
of
grand
We
jury
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before
this
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5
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?