Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06022/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06022-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Jimmy Alonzo Wright
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JIMMY ALONZO WRIGHT, a/k/a Jimmy Alfonzo Wright,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00006-RJC-1; 3:12-cv-00460-RJC)

Submitted: April 28, 2015 Decided: May 4, 2015

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Alonzo Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6022 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/04/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Alonzo Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions.* 

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 

Wright has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

 * The court correctly construed the nunc pro tunc motion, 

the motion to alter or amend, and the motion for summary 

judgment as successive and unauthorized § 2255 motions. 

Appeal: 15-6022 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/04/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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: 15-6022 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/04/2015 Pg: 3 of 3