Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08116/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08116-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8116

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERMAINE ANTONIO ARMSTRONG,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:04-cr-00634-TLW-1; 4:09-cv-70066-TLW)

Submitted: February 10, 2010 Decided: February 22, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaine Antonio Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William 

Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8116 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/22/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jermaine Antonio Armstrong seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude Armstrong 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 the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-8116 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/22/2010 Pg: 2 of 2