US v. Andrew Malcolm, No. 13-7511 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7511 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDREW JEROME MALCOLM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:08-cr-00232-DCN-1) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew McGavock Robinson, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Nathan S. Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andrew Jerome § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent a of U.S.C. district § 2255 appealability. 28 (2012) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. 28 the The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate his appeal motion. a on to order issues relief seeks court s judge denying Malcolm showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a 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 of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 Malcolm has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 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.
