United States v. Zachary Chesser
United States v. Zachary Chesser
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7432
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ZACHARY ADAM CHESSER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00395-LO-1; 1:15-cv-01602-LO)
Submitted: May 14, 2018 Decided: May 22, 2018
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Zachary Adam Chesser, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Zachary Adam Chesser seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion to appoint counsel and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The orders are 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 Chesser has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Chesser’s motion for 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.