Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Leroy Kelly, 20-6431 (2020)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 20-6431 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jul. 28, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6431 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LEROY JOSEPH KELLY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:97-cr-00333-MOC-1; 3:16-cv-00465- MOC) Submitted: July 23, 2020 Decided: July 28, 2020 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio
More
                                     UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                        No. 20-6431


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

LEROY JOSEPH KELLY,

                     Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:97-cr-00333-MOC-1; 3:16-cv-00465-
MOC)


Submitted: July 23, 2020                                          Decided: July 28, 2020


Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Leroy Joseph Kelly, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Leroy Joseph Kelly seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

See Buck v. Davis, 
137 S. Ct. 759
, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 
565 U.S. 134
, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v.

McDaniel, 
529 U.S. 473
, 484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Kelly has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED




                                             2


Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer