US v. Lloyd Maxwell, No. 09-7321 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7321 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LLOYD GEORGE MAXWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:87-cr-00371-MJG-2; 1:09-cv-00114-MJG) Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 29, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lloyd George Maxwell, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lloyd George Maxwell seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. Because that motion directly attacked his conviction, the motion should have been characterized as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion under United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). The district court s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a substantial right. satisfies jurists constitutional A certificate of appealability will not 28 U.S.C. this would claims by showing the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that any district of (2006). demonstrating assessment court is a A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Maxwell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 we deny a To the extent that Maxwell s notice of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.
