US v. Angelo Galloway, No. 14-6388 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6388 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ANGELO GALLOWAY, a/k/a Gelo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:10-cr-00096-MSD-TEM-2; 2:11-cv-00462-MSD) Submitted: June 30, 2014 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and July 28, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Angelo Galloway, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Angelo Galloway seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate (2012). of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) 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) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims 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 petition 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 Galloway has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Galloway s motions to expedite, for bond, and for in camera review of grand jury transcripts. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 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.
