US v. Jamie Beall, No. 13-7063 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7063 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMIE LAQUAN BEALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:09-cr-00805-PMD-1; 2:12-cv-03118-PMD) Submitted: December 9, 2013 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 18, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamie Laquan Beall, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Modica, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jamie court s order Laquan Beall denying seeks relief (West Supp. 2013) motion. on to his appeal 28 the district U.S.C.A. § 2255 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. of the 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 right. denial of a constitutional Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Beall has not made the requisite showing. deny a certificate We dispense with of oral appealability argument 2 and because Accordingly, we dismiss the the facts appeal. and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3