Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06804/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06804-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerald Eugene Michael
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6804

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GERALD EUGENE MICHAEL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:10-cr-00379-CCE-1; 1:14-cv-00026-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: September 17, 2015 Decided: September 23, 2015

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Eugene Michael, Appellant Pro Se. Randall Stuart Galyon, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Angela Hewlett Miller, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6804 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Eugene Michael seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order 

is 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.” 

Id. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

“reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims 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 

Michael 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: 15-6804 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/23/2015 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: 15-6804 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3