Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07126/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07126-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7126

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BENNIE AUSTIN MACK, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00267-WO-1; 1:13-cv-00175-

WO-JLW)

Submitted: December 3, 2015 Decided: December 9, 2015

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bennie Austin Mack, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Frank Joseph Chut, 

Jr., Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant 

United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7126 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/09/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Bennie Austin Mack, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and 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. See 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 

Mack 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: 15-7126 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/09/2015 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: 15-7126 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/09/2015 Pg: 3 of 3