US v. Keith Billingsley, No. 12-7341 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7341 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEITH BILLINGSLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00395-JCC-3; 1:07-cv-00185-JCC) Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Billingsley, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Leo Fahey, Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorneys, Mark Alex Grider, Tino Martin Lisella, Luis Morales, Melissa Siskind, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Keith Billingsley seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion as successive unless a and time-barred. circuit appealability. justice or The judge order is not issues a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). appealable of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this reasonable jurists would assessment of constitutional wrong. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) the standard find by that demonstrating the claims district is that court s debatable or Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Billingsley has not made the requisite 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 2 before this 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.
