US v. Claude Bellamy, No. 10-7461 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7461 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CLAUDE WENDELL BELLAMY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:99-cr-00049-F-1) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 21, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claude Wendell Bellamy, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Claude Wendell Bellamy seeks to appeal the district court s order treating his motion for a certificate of appealability as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. appealable unless a circuit justice certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, certificate of 369 The order is not or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); F.3d 363, appealability 369 will (4th not Cir. 2004). absent issue A 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. Slack satisfies jurists this would of 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. conclude that We have Bellamy independently has not 2 made reviewed the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.