US v. Kirk Loney, No. 14-6794 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6794 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KIRK L. LONEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00290-REP-1) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit September 26, 2014 Judges, and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kirk L. Loney, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Arlen Jagels, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kirk L. Loney seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying (2012) motion his and appealability. justice or motion denying to reinstate his motion his for 28 a U.S.C. § 2255 certificate of The orders are not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). of appealability. 28 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). 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 Loney has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Loney s motion for transcripts at government expense. 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.
