Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07044/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07044-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Gerard Oneil Wells
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7044

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GERARD ONEIL WELLS, a/k/a J,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (0:08-cr-00608-JFA-2; 0:15-cv-01303-JFA)

Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerard Oneil Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7044 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Gerard Oneil Wells 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 

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

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 15-7044 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7044 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3