Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07343/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07343-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jermaine Oteaso Ogatdes Bennett
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7343

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERMAINE OTEASO OGATDES BENNETT, a/k/a Jermaine Oteaso 

Bennett,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:10-cr-00210-TDS-1; 1:12-cv-00880-TDS-JLW)

Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: February 5, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaine Oteaso Ogatdes Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue 

Boggs, Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant 

United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7343 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/05/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jermaine Oteaso Ogatdes Bennett seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and 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 

Bennett 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 

Appeal: 15-7343 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/05/2016 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: 15-7343 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/05/2016 Pg: 3 of 3