UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4281
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANGELO GALLOWAY, a/k/a Gelo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:10-cr-00096-MSD-TEM-2)
Submitted: July 15, 2013 Decided: August 1, 2013
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Angelo Galloway, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Angelo Galloway appeals the district court order
denying his motion for release on bond pending the resolution of
his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial
Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). We conclude
that the district court’s order is an appealable collateral
order. See, e.g., Pagan v. United States, 353 F.3d 1343,
1345-46 & n.4 (11th Cir. 2003) (adopting rule and collecting
cases).
A prisoner, however, still may not appeal a final
order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2006). We conclude that this requirement applies, as well, to
appealable collateral orders in post-conviction proceedings
subject to the certificate of appealability requirement. See
Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 686 (4th Cir. 2004); see also
Pagan, 353 F.3d at 1346. 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) (2006). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
2
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). 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 Galloway has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
In light of this disposition, we deny as moot Galloway’s motions
to expedite decision. 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
3