Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07374/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07374-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Jerrod Epps
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7374

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER JERROD EPPS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (4:08-cr-00027-F-1; 4:16-cv-00181-F)

Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 3, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Jerrod Epps, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian, 

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

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7374 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/03/2017 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Jerrod Epps seeks to appeal 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 

Epps 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

Appeal: 16-7374 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/03/2017 Pg: 2 of 2