Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07175/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07175-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Elbert Lewis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7175

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DONALD ELBERT LEWIS, a/k/a Peptone,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (4:12-cr-00068-FL-2; 4:13-cv-00182-FL)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Elbert Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Augustus D. Willis, Seth 

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

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7175 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Elbert Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and 

denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 

Lewis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny 

Lewis’ motions to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 

42(b) and for a mental and emotional evaluation. We dispense 

Appeal: 15-7175 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 15-7175 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 3 of 3