UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00748-GBL-TRJ) Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. LaJoel T. Rouse, Appellant Pro Se. Ayana Niambi Free, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

LaJoel Theodore Rouse seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, construing the petition as a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction. The district court's order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).

The district court properly determined that Rouse could not proceed with his claims under § 2241. See United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008); In re: Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2000).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rouse has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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

Summaries of

Rouse v. Wilson

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Sep 30, 2014

584 F. App'x 76 (4th Cir. 2014)

holding a petitioner could not proceed with his claims under § 2241 to challenge the career offender enhancement

Summary of this case from Dodd v. Thomas

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Neal v. Joyner

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Hawkins v. Bennettsville

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Ross v. Mosley

finding the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Brown v. Moseley

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Barnes v. Bragg

finding the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career-offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Farmer v. Bragg

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Foote v. Bragg

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Chestnut v. Ebbert

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Cooper v. Bureau of Prisons

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Davis v. Thomas

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Brown v. Thomas

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from In re Sanders

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Bentacourt v. Meeks

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Hutchinson v. Meek

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Kirk v. Meeks

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Cannaday v. Bragg

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Brown v. Meeks

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Moon v. Thomas

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Ross v. Thomas

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Leite v. Warden

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Reid v. Warden

finding that the district court properly determined that a petitioner could not challenge a career offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Hurd v. Warden

affirming a district court order holding that a petitioner could not challenge a sentencing enhancement via § 2241

Summary of this case from Young v. Meeks

noting that the district court properly determined a petitioner could not challenge a career-offender enhancement under § 2241

Summary of this case from Farmer v. Ramirez

Rouse v. Wilson

Summary

Opinion

Rouse v. Wilson

Rouse v. Wilson

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Rouse v. Wilson

Summary

Opinion

Rouse v. Wilson

Rouse v. Wilson

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations