Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06260/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06260-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sherrell Gary Brinkley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6260

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

SHERRELL GARY BRINKLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (3:91-cr-00131-GCM-1; 3:02-cv-00301-GCM)

Submitted: July 30, 2015 Decided: August 12, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sherrell Gary Brinkley, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie 

Hoefling, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North 

Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6260 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/12/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Federal inmate Sherrell Brinkley appeals the district 

court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, his 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, as supplemented, and his Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We deny the motion for a certificate of 

appealabilty and dismiss the appeal. 

The orders are 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 Brinkley has not made the requisite showing. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 15-6260 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/12/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6260 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/12/2015 Pg: 3 of 3