US v. Scott Luellen, No. 11-7648 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7648 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SCOTT E. LUELLEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O Grady, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00102-LO-1; 1:09-cv-00681-LO) Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 3, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott E. Luellen, Appellant Pro Se. Derek Andreson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Scott E. Luellen seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion for reconsideration, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), of the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable judge unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice or 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 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 Luellen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Luellen s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 2 facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.
