US v. Floyd Looker, No. 10-7377 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7377 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FLOYD RAYMOND LOOKER, a/k/a Ray, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:96-cr-00043-FPS-1; 1:99-cv00181-FPS) Submitted: March 14, 2011 Decided: April 8, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Floyd Raymond Looker, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. David Earl Godwin, States Attorneys, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Floyd Raymond Looker, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion to amend his previously denied 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable judge unless a circuit certificate of issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). certificate of appealability. justice A appealability will or not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. satisfies jurists would of Slack this the v. McDaniel, standard find that U.S. 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 a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. We have independently reviewed record conclude that Looker has not made the requisite showing. and A district court may only grant a post-judgment motion to amend if the court has vacated the underlying judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b). Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 427- 48 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc). Here, the district court did not 2 vacate the declined to certificate dispense underlying overrule of with judgment, on appeal. appealability oral argument and a judgment that Accordingly, dismiss because the the this we deny appeal. facts court and a We 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.
