Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Claude Bellamy, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Claude Bellamy's appeal. The district court had construed Bellamy's motion to dismiss the indictment as a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissed it for lack of authorization. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Bellamy did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, as required to appeal the dismissal of a second or successive § 2255 motion. Therefore, the appellate court dismissed Bellamy's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-01-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7467

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Claude Bellamy's appeal. The district court had construed Bellamy's motion to dismiss the indictment as a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissed it for lack of authorization. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Bellamy did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, as required to appeal the dismissal of a second or successive § 2255 motion. Therefore, the appellate court dismissed Bellamy's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views2 pages

    United States v. Claude Bellamy, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Claude Bellamy's appeal. The district court had construed Bellamy's motion to dismiss the indictment as a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissed it for lack of authorization. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Bellamy did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, as required to appeal the dismissal of a second or successive § 2255 motion. Therefore, the appellate court dismissed Bellamy's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-7467

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CLAUDE WENDELL BELLAMY,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (7:99-cr-00049-F-1, 7:03-cv-00024-F)

    Submitted:

    January 15, 2015

    Decided:

    January 21, 2015

    Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Claude Wendell Bellamy, Appellant Pro Se.


    John Samuel Bowler,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jennifer P. May-Parker,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Claude Wendell Bellamy seeks to appeal the district
    courts order construing his motion to dismiss the indictment as
    a

    second

    or

    successive

    28

    U.S.C.

    2255

    (2012)

    motion

    dismissing it for lack of authorization from this court.


    U.S.C.

    2244(b)(3)(A)

    unless

    circuit

    appealability.

    (2012).

    justice

    or

    The
    judge

    order

    is

    issues

    not

    See 28

    appealable

    certificate

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

    and

    of

    A certificate

    of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of


    the denial of a constitutional right.
    (2012).

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2)

    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

    constitutional

    right.

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).


    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
    that Bellamy has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly,

    we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.


    We

    dispense

    contentions

    with
    are

    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the

    facts

    and

    the

    materials

    legal
    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like