Opinion
No. 13-7482
12-20-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMAL EDWARD CRUMP, Defendant - Appellant.
Jamal Edward Crump, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:06-cr-00007-SGW-RSB-1; 7:13-cv-80632-SGW-RSB) Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamal Edward Crump, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Jamal Edward Crump seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his self-styled "Motion to Withdraw Plea," which the court construed as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion and dismissed on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 Crump 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 before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED