Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07893/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07893-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Glendon Modisette
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7893

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERRY GLENDON MODISETTE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (7:07-cr-00069-BO-1; 7:12-cv-00061-BO)

Submitted: January 28, 2015 Decided: March 5, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Glendon Modisette, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7893 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/05/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Glendon Modisette seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)

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.” 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 Modisette has not made the requisite showing. See

Whiteside v. United States, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 7245453 (4th 

Cir. Dec. 19, 2014) (en banc). Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, deny Modisette’s motion for the appointment of 

Appeal: 13-7893 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/05/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

counsel, 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

Appeal: 13-7893 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/05/2015 Pg: 3 of 3