US v. Raymond Holloway, No. 14-6099 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6099 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAYMOND T. HOLLOWAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00213-REP-1; 3:10-cv-00859-REP) Submitted: March 27, 2014 Before MOTZ, Circuit Circuit Judges. Judge, Decided: and HAMILTON and April 1, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond T. Holloway, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Arlen Jagels, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Tanya H. Powell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raymond T. Holloway 28 U.S.C. district The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent a constitutional of § 2255 appealability. 28 (2012) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. his the motion. a on appeal order issues relief to court s judge denying seeks 28 showing U.S.C. of the denial § 2253(c)(2). of When a 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 Holloway 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.
