U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2025

United States v. Alvin Drummond

United States v. Alvin Drummond
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided September 29, 2025

United States v. Alvin Drummond

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7165 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-7165

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALVIN ANDRAE DRUMMOND, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:17-cr-00517-HMH-1; 6:24- cv-06329-HMH)

Submitted: September 25, 2025 Decided: September 29, 2025

Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alvin Andrae Drummond, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7165 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Alvin Andrae Drummond seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When, as here, 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Drummond 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.