US v. Angelo Galloway, No. 13-4281 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4281 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ANGELO GALLOWAY, a/k/a Gelo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:10-cr-00096-MSD-TEM-2) Submitted: July 15, 2013 Decided: August 1, 2013 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Angelo Galloway, Assistant United Appellee. Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Angelo Galloway appeals the district court order denying his motion for release on bond pending the resolution of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). that the order. district See, court s e.g., Pagan order v. is United an We conclude appealable States, 353 collateral F.3d 1343, 1345-46 & n.4 (11th Cir. 2003) (adopting rule and collecting cases). A prisoner, however, still may not appeal a final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) We conclude that this requirement applies, as well, to appealable collateral orders in post-conviction proceedings subject to the certificate of appealability requirement. See Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 686 (4th Cir. 2004); see also Pagan, 353 F.3d at 1346. not issue absent a constitutional right. A certificate of appealability will substantial showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating 2 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 Galloway has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. In light of this disposition, we deny as moot Galloway s motions to expedite decision. 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 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.
