Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-07297/USCOURTS-ca4-10-07297-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 10-7297

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOSE NACACIO AMU, a/k/a Amu, a/k/a Sld Dft 3:97-40-11,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:97-cr-00040-FDW-11; 3:10-cv-00381-FDW)

Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 4, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Nacacio Amu, Appellant Pro Se. Michael E. Savage, Jennifer 

A. Youngs, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-7297 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/04/2011 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Amu appeals the district court’s order treating 

his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion for a reduction in 

sentence as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 

motion and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 

Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 691 (4th Cir. 2004). 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). 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Amu 

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: 10-7297 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/04/2011 Pg: 2 of 2