Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06229/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06229-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6229

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ADAM JOE LOUIS JORDAN, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00011-RLV-DSC-1; 5:14-cv00090-RLV)

Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adam Joe Louis Jordan, III, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard 

Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Asheville, North Carolina; William Michael Miller, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Dana Owen Washington, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6229 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
PER CURIAM:

Adam Joe Louis Jordan, III, seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. The orders are 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 

Jordan 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 

2

Appeal: 15-6229 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

Appeal: 15-6229 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/22/2015 Pg: 3 of 3