United States v. Sean Whitley , 585 F. App'x 37 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6846
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SEAN FONTAE WHITLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:04-cr-00166-H-1; 5:14-cv-00174-H)
Submitted: October 15, 2014 Decided: October 22, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Sean Fontae Whitley, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sean Fontae Whitley, a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition for a
writ of habeas corpus. In the petition, Whitley asserted he was
entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), and
alternatively, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), for a writ of
error coram nobis, or for a writ of audita querela. The
district court dismissed Whitley’s § 2255 motion as successive
and denied his alternate claims. We dismiss in part and affirm
in part.
To the extent that Whitley seeks to appeal the
district court’s dismissal of his § 2255 motion, we conclude
that he has failed to make the requisite showing for a
certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(2012); Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484–85 (2000); United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205–06 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion
of the appeal.
To the extent that Whitley appeals the district
court’s denial of his alternate claims, we have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
denial for the reasons stated by the district court. See United
States v. Whitley, No. 5:04-cr-00166-H-1; 5:14-cv-00174-H
2
(E.D.N.C. April 16, 2014). 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3