US v. Leroy Lovell
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 5:11-cr-00148-D-1,5:14-cv-00654-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999672064]. Mailed to: Leroy Lovell. [15-6677]
Appeal: 15-6677
Doc: 7
Filed: 10/05/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6677
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEROY EARL LOVELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:11-cr-00148-D-1; 5:14-cv-00654-D)
Submitted:
September 28, 2015
Decided:
October 5, 2015
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Leroy Earl Lovell, Appellant Pro Se.
Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-6677
Doc: 7
Filed: 10/05/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Leroy
Earl
Lovell
seeks
to
appeal
the
district
court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion to
vacate and denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for
a sentence reduction.
We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
The order denying relief on Lovell’s § 2255 motion is not
appealable
unless
a
circuit
certificate of appealability.
A
certificate
of
justice
or
judge
issues
a
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
appealability
will
not
issue
absent
“a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief
on
the
demonstrating
district
merits,
that
court’s
debatable
or
a
When the district court denies
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
Slack
satisfies
jurists
this
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
standard
find
U.S.
that
the
claims
constitutional
529
by
is
473,
484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
a
debatable
Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Lovell has not made the requisite showing.
2
Accordingly, we deny
Appeal: 15-6677
Doc: 7
Filed: 10/05/2015
Pg: 3 of 3
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the portion of the
appeal pertaining to the § 2255 motion.
As to the district court’s denial of Lovell’s 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction, we have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm
the denial of that motion for the reasons stated by the district
court.
United States v. Lovell, Nos. 5:11-cr-00148-D-1; 5:14-
cv-00654-D (E.D.N.C. Apr. 20, 2015); see United States v. Mann,
709 F.3d 301, 304-05 (4th Cir. 2013) (reviewing disposition of
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion).
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.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3
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?