Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07004/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07004-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7004

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JONATHAN SANDERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:13-cr-00449-LMB-1; 1:15-cv-00246-LMB)

Submitted: November 30, 2015 Decided: December 30, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Ledbetter Taylor, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer Anne Clarke, Sean 

Phillip Tonolli, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7004 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/30/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Demetrio Sanders seeks to appeal 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 

Sanders has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Sanders’ motion to 

appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 15-7004 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/30/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7004 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/30/2015 Pg: 3 of 3