US v. George McLeod, III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00329-CMC-1,3:14-cv-00365-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999679418]. Mailed to: George McLeod. [15-6800]

Appeal: 15-6800

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/16/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6800

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GEORGE MCLEOD, III, a/k/a Pimp Stick Quezzy,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00329-CMC-1; 3:14-cv-00365-CMC)

Submitted:

September 29, 2015

Decided:

October 16, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George McLeod, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Tommie DeWayne Pearson,
Jamie L. Schoen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6800

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/16/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
George McLeod, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

denying

his

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

59(e)

and

60(b)

motions

following the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

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
McLeod has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 15-6800

Doc: 10

contentions

are

Filed: 10/16/2015

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3