US v. David Ramey, Jr., No. 14-6629 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6629 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID ALEXANDER RAMEY, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:09-cr-00054-GEC-RSB-1; 7:13-cv-80603-GECRSB) Submitted: September 15, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Alexander Ramey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David district Alexander court s order § 2255 (2012) motion. Ramey, Jr., dismissing seeks as to untimely appeal his 28 the U.S.C. 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. (2012). 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 on both 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ramey has not made the requisite showing. although we grant Ramey s motion to supplement Accordingly, his informal brief, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 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.
