United States v. Mellor

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-7330


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

LETTY MELLOR,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.      Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge.   (7:07-cr-00003-gec-mfu-2; 7:10-cv-80225-gec-
mfu)


Submitted:   January 18, 2011             Decided:   January 27, 2011


Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Letty Mellor, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen John Pfleger, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Letty        Mellor    seeks   to    appeal    the    district      court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)

motion.    The order is 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 Mellor 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




                                           2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3