Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07314/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07314-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-7314

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES J. SAUNDERS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (4:01-cr-30083-JLK-5; 4:15-cv-80839-JLK-RSB)

Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: January 20, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James J. Saunders, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, 

Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7314 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/20/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

James J. Saunders, Jr., 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 

Saunders has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Saunders’ motion for 

the appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 16-7314 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/20/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7314 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/20/2017 Pg: 3 of 3