US v. Calvin Winbush
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999972278-2] Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00021-HEH-RCY-1,3:14-cv-00724-HEH-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Calvin Winbush. [16-7527]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
CALVIN WINBUSH, a/k/a Good Game,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:12-cr-00021-HEH-RCY-1; 3:14-cv00724-HEH-RCY)
Submitted: March 23, 2017
Decided: May 10, 2017
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Calvin Winbush, Appellant Pro Se. Erik Sean Siebert, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Calvin Winbush seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 (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 a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Winbush has not
made the requisite showing. Winbush contends that the district court’s application of
Sentencing Guidelines enhancements based on facts that were neither admitted by him
nor found by a jury violated the rule announced in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct.
2151 (2013). But Alleyne pertains only to facts that increase a defendant’s mandatory
minimum sentence, and is not relevant in Winbush’s case.
133 S. Ct. at 2155.
Furthermore, Alleyne did not “correct” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 233
(2005), but rather, explicitly affirmed the discretion of a district court to impose a
sentence within the range prescribed by statute. 133 S. Ct. at 2163. Finally, we perceive
Pg: 3 of 3
no debatable issue in the district court’s resolution of Winbush’s § 2255 motion without
holding an evidentiary hearing because Winbush’s claims of ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel lack legal merit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.
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?