Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07003/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07003-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Clifton Jerome Washington
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLIFTON JEROME WASHINGTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

Chief District Judge. (5:09-cr-00105-D-1)

Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clifton Jerome Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David 

Goulian, Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7003 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Clifton Jerome Washington seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his self-styled “motion for 

summary judgment” and “motion to rectify order and judgment of 

court[,]” related to his prior, unsuccessful motion under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). 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 

Washington 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 

Appeal: 15-7003 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7003 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3