Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07705/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07705-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clarence Sheldon Jupiter
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7705

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLARENCE SHELDON JUPITER, a/k/a Star,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, 

District Judge. (5:93-cr-00004-MFU-1; 7:98-cv-00016-MFU)

Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 24, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Sheldon Jupiter, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray 

Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7705 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Sheldon Jupiter seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

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 

Jupiter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Jupiter’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 14-7705 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7705 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 3 of 3