US v. George McLeod, III, No. 14-7045 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7045 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GEORGE MCLEOD, III, a/k/a Pimp Stick Quezzy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:12-cr-00329-CMC-1; 3:14-cv-00365-CMC) Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 21, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George McLeod, III, Appellant Pro Se. Tommie DeWayne Pearson, Assistant United States Attorney, Jamie L. Schoen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George McLeod, 28 U.S.C. the district The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a of § 2255 appealability. (2012) 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” his appeal motion. a on to order issues relief seeks court’s judge denying III, 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 McLeod has not made the requisite showing. deny McLeod’s motion dismiss the appeal. facts and legal for a certificate of Accordingly, we appealability and We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3