Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07264/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07264-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonathan Bernard Sapp
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7264

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JONATHAN BERNARD SAPP, a/k/a Jon-Jon, a/k/a True, a/k/a True Math,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (5:02-cr-00419-CMC-3; 

5:16-cv-02333-CMC)

Submitted: April 23, 2020 Decided: April 28, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Bernard Sapp, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7264 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/28/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Bernard Sapp seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. 

See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sapp 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7264 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/28/2020 Pg: 2 of 2