Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07485/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07485-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Wayne Monroe
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7485

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

KENNETH WAYNE MONROE, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:07-cr-00093-BR-1; 5:16-cv-00343-BR) 

Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 20, 2019

Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kenneth Wayne Monroe, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7485 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/20/2019 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Kenneth Wayne Monroe 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 Monroe 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7485 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/20/2019 Pg: 2 of 2