US v. Delton Raynor, No. 16-6077 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6077 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DELTON LAMONT RAYNOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:11-cr-00159-RAJ-DEM-1; 2:15-cv-00557-RAJ) Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Delton Lamont Raynor, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lamont Creighton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, Stephen Westley Haynie, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Delton Lamont Raynor seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motions filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). Regarding the denial of Rule 60(b) relief, we find no abuse of discretion by the district court, see Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (noting that Rule 60(b) motions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion), and thus affirm this portion of the order appealed on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Raynor, No. 2:11-cr-00159-RAJ-DEM-1 (E.D. Va. Dec. 23, 2015). Regarding the appeal of the denial of Raynor’s § 2255 motion, the order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a of 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” appealability. 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 2 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 Raynor has not made the requisite showing. a certificate dispense of with contentions are appealability oral argument adequately and dismiss because presented Accordingly, we deny in the the the appeal. facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 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.
