United States v. John Wilson
United States v. John Wilson
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7356
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN KENNEDY WILSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:15-cr-00221-BR-2; 5:17-cv-00289-BR)
Submitted: January 17, 2019 Decided: January 23, 2019
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Kennedy Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
John Kennedy Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his
28 U.S.C. § 2255(2012) motion and has filed a motion for a certificate of
appealability. 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 Wilson has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wilson’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
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished