United States v. Jeffrey Glenn Toohey , 622 F. App'x 281 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7049
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY GLENN TOOHEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. W. Earl Britt,
Senior District Judge. (4:12-cr-00046-BR-1; 4:15-cv-00003-BR)
Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Glenn Toohey, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Aubrey West,
Assistant United States Attorney, Felice McConnell Corpening,
Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Glenn Toohey 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
Toohey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, while
we grant Toohey’s motion to amend his informal brief, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3