US v. Patrick Plumlee, No. 11-6532 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6532 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. PATRICK KIT PLUMLEE, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:94-cr-00002-2; 4:07-cv-00049-RAJ) Submitted: July 21, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, July 26, 2011 and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Kit Plumlee, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Patrick Kit Plumlee seeks to appeal the district court s order treating his self-styled Motion to Vacate as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 dismissing it on that basis. * appealable unless a certificate of Supp. 2011) motion, and The district court s order is not circuit certificate of appealability. A (West justice or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). appealability will 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. 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. Although the district court also found that Plumlee s motion was time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, because Plumlee s motion was a successive § 2255 motion, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the timeliness of Plumlee s motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003). 2 at 484-85. conclude We that have Plumlee independently has not made reviewed the the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.
