Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07359/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07359-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-7359

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES W. BAILEY, JR., a/k/a James W. “Bill” Bailey, Jr.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:11-cr-00010-MR-DLH-1; 1:14-cv-00310-MR)

Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 28, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James W. Bailey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Bain-Creed, 

Jonathan Henry Ferry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, Richard Lee Edwards, Amy Elizabeth 

Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Paul Bradford Taylor, 

Corey F. Ellis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7359 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/28/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

James W. Bailey, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of 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 

Bailey 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 

Appeal: 16-7359 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/28/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7359 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/28/2017 Pg: 3 of 3