US v. Lamont McElveen, No. 13-6428 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6428 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. LAMONT ALVIN MCELVEEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:03-cr-00473-TLW-1; 4:12-cv-02325-TLW) Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 5, 2013 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamont Alvin McElveen, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lamont Alvin McElveen seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must 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 McElveen has not made the requisite showing. * * Accordingly, McElveen previously was denied relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because he did not obtain pre-filing authorization from this court to file the motion at issue in this appeal, that motion is unauthorized and successive, and the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); (Continued) 2 we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 204-05 (4th Cir. 2003) (describing procedural requirements to file successive applications for collateral review). In any event, were we to consider McElveen s claim on the merits, we would conclude without difficulty that McElveen has demonstrated no debatable ground for relief. 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.
