Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07100/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07100-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-7100

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEROMEY KEITH MITCHELL, a/k/a Kaos,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (4:13-cr-00023-D-1; 4:15-cv-00152-D)

Submitted: January 18, 2017 Decided: January 30, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeromey Keith Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Dena Janae King, Seth 

Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7100 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/30/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeromey Keith Mitchell 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. 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 

Mitchell 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 

Appeal: 16-7100 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/30/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7100 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/30/2017 Pg: 3 of 3