United States of America v. Jerrell Antwan Jenkins

22-6163Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit12 ago 2023

Testo completo

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6163
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERRELL ANTWAN JENKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:17-cr-00041-FL-1; 4:20-cv-00107-FL)
Submitted: July 31, 2023 Decided: August 14, 2023
Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerrell Antwan Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jerrell Antwan Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by showing that reasonable jurists could find the district
court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580
U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must show both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the
motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler,
565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jenkins has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 of 2 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.