Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06827/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06827-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jaevon Antwan Higgs
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6827

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAEVON ANTWAN HIGGS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cr-00004-HEH-RCY-1; 3:17-

cv-00364-HEH-RCY)

Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jaevon Antwan Higgs, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6827 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/23/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jaevon Antwan Higgs seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion and denying 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) (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 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 Higgs 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: 19-6827 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/23/2020 Pg: 2 of 2