US v. James Scott, Jr., No. 13-7604 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7604 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JAMES SCOTT, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00066-HEH-1) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 10, 2014 Before KING, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Scott, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Scott, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which the court properly construed as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Scott also appeals the district court s order denying his motion for return of seized property. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. The order denying relief on the § 2255 motion is not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. satisfies jurists would of Slack this the v. 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 a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. conclude that We have Scott independently has not made 2 reviewed the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of the appeal. Scott also appeals the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) motion for return of seized property. We have reviewed Accordingly, stated by we the the affirm district record the and denial court. find of no reversible relief United for States the v. error. reasons Scott, No. 3:07-cr-00066-HEH-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 21, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 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.