US v. Lloyd Maxwell, No. 09-7330 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7330 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. LLOYD GEORGE MAXWELL, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:93-cr-00262-1) Submitted: July 14, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010 Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lloyd George Maxwell, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lloyd George Maxwell seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying his motions in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) proceedings to amend his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, and for reconsideration. unless a circuit appealability. justice or The orders are not appealable judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). certificate of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. We have independently reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. record Maxwell has not made the requisite showing. and conclude that Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Maxwell s motion to dismiss his original indictment and his Nunc Pro Tunc Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(2) Supplemental 2 Motion for Recall of Mandate to Amend his Rule 33 Motion and Informal Brief. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
