United Statesv.Shull

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUITNov 24, 2014
No. 14-7286 (4th Cir. 2014)
No. 14-7286585 Fed. Appx. 853

No. 14-7286

11-24-2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JONATHAN LEE SHULL, Defendant - Appellant.

Jonathan Lee Shull, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00018-MR-1; 1:14-cv-00188-MR) Before KING, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan Lee Shull, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Lee Shull 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 Shull has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED