Case ID: f-appx_261/html/0618-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jerry Wayne SHEPPARD, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 07-7069.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 9, 2008.
    Decided: Jan. 17, 2008.
    Jerry Wayne Sheppard, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Jerry Wayne Sheppard seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and motion to reconsider. We previously vacated and remanded Sheppard’s § 2255 action for the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on whether Sheppard’s appellate counsel provided him with ineffective assistance because of a conflict of interest. See United States v. Sheppard, 121 Fed.Appx. 508 (4th Cir.2005). The district court found that the representation was not constitutionally ineffective. The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). 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. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sheppard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Sheppard’s two pending motions to expedite and his motion for leave to file exhibits to his informal brief in excess of the page limit. 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.