US v. Robert Lloyd


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [1000019460-2] Originating case number: 2:05-cr-00142-PMD-1,2:16-cv-01285-PMD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000111993]. [17-6114]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6114 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/05/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6114 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT LAMONT LLOYD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:05-cr-00142-PMD-1; 2:16cv-01285-PMD) Submitted: June 28, 2017 Decided: July 5, 2017 Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cody James Groeber, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Marshall Taylor Austin, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6114 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/05/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Robert Lamont Lloyd 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 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lloyd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lloyd’s motion for a certificate of appealability 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. DISMISSED 2

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?