United States v. Charles J. King , 585 F. App'x 170 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-6838
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    CHARLES JERMAINE KING, a/k/a Zig-Lah, a/k/a Ziggy, a/k/a
    Charles Jermaine King, Jr.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Abingdon.    James P. Jones, District
    Judge. (1:08-cr-00041-JPJ-RSB-1; 1:12-cv-80492-JPJ-RSB)
    Submitted:   October 23, 2014             Decided:   November 10, 2014
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Charles Jermaine King, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R.
    Bockhorst, Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorneys,
    Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Charles       Jermaine     King,      Jr.,    seeks     to   appeal     the
    district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2012) motion.           The 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 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 King 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
    2
    presented in the materials before this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-6838

Citation Numbers: 585 F. App'x 170

Filed Date: 11/10/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023