US v. James Schimmel, No. 14-7384 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7384 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES RAYMOND SCHIMMEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00494-LO-1; 1:14-cv-00550-LO) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Raymond Schimmel, Appellant Pro Se. Catherine Sun Ahn, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexander T. H. Nguyen, Karen Ledbetter Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Ryan K. Dickey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Raymond Schimmel seeks to appeal the district court’s order motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues denying a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent relief “a on of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 appealability. (2012) 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” his 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 Schimmel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Schimmel’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. facts and legal 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