US v. Leroy Lovell, No. 15-6677 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6677 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LEROY EARL LOVELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:11-cr-00148-D-1; 5:14-cv-00654-D) Submitted: September 28, 2015 Decided: October 5, 2015 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Earl Lovell, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leroy Earl Lovell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion to vacate and denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. The order denying relief on Lovell’s § 2255 motion is not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court’s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lovell has not made the requisite showing. 2 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the portion of the appeal pertaining to the § 2255 motion. As to the district court’s denial of Lovell’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of that motion for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Lovell, Nos. 5:11-cr-00148-D-1; 5:14- cv-00654-D (E.D.N.C. Apr. 20, 2015); see United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304-05 (4th Cir. 2013) (reviewing disposition of § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion). 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 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.
