US v. Jeffery Armstrong, No. 14-6602 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6602 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEFFERY K. ARMSTRONG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00304-GBL-1; 1:13-cv-00589-GBL) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit September 25, 2014 Judges, and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffery K. Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Gary Olshan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeffery K. Armstrong § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent a of U.S.C. § 2255 appealability. 28 (2012) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. 28 district The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate his the motion. a on appeal order issues relief to court s judge denying seeks 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 Armstrong has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Armstrong s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate dispense of with appealability, and oral because argument 2 dismiss the the appeal. facts and We 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.
