US v. Everett Kaymore
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00016-MFU-RSB-1, 5:16-cv-81164-MFU-RSB, 5:16-cv-81167-MFU-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: appellant. [16-7245]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
EVERETT CORNELIUS KAYMORE, a/k/a CO, a/k/a Everet Cornelius
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Michael F. Urbanski,
(5:10-cr-00016-MFU-RSB-1; 5:16-cv-81164-MFURSB; 5:16-cv-81167-MFU-RSB)
January 31, 2017
February 3, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Everett Cornelius Kaymore, Appellant Pro Se.
Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, Jeb
Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
court’s orders denying as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motions, and the order denying his motion to reconsider.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
A certificate of appealability will not
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Kaymore has not made the requisite showing.
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Pg: 3 of 3
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?