US v. Jerrell Casey, No. 12-7861 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7861 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERRELL S. CASEY, a/k/a Jerrell Casey, a/k/a Rell, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer; John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judges. (3:09-cr-00282-JRS-1) Submitted: March 11, 2013 Before DAVIS and Circuit Judge. WYNN, Decided: Circuit Judges, and March 14, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeremy Brian Gordon, GORDON ALVAREZ, Waxahachie, Texas, for Appellant. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerrell S. Casey seeks to appeal the district court s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. motion as successive and denying reconsideration. 2012) The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of 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. satisfies jurists would of the v. Slack this 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 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 Casey has not made the requisite showing. States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2003). we deny his motion dismiss the appeal. for a certificate of Cf. United Accordingly, appealability and We dispense with oral argument because the 2 facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3