UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7330
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LLOYD GEORGE MAXWELL,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:93-cr-00262-1)
Submitted: July 14, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lloyd George Maxwell, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lloyd George Maxwell seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying his motions in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2010) proceedings to amend his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion, and for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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 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
Maxwell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
further deny Maxwell’s motion to dismiss his original indictment
and his “Nunc Pro Tunc Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(2) Supplemental
2
Motion for Recall of Mandate to Amend his Rule 33 Motion and
Informal Brief.” We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3