Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07520/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07520-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Ashe
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7520

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH ASHE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Martin K. 

Reidinger, District Judge. (2:12-cr-00033-MR-DLH-2; 2:14-cv00040-MR)

Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 1, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Ashe, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Joseph Enright, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

Thomas Michael Kent, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Amy 

Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7520 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Ashe 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 

Ashe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, while we 

grant Ashe’s motion for leave to amend his informal brief, we 

deny the pending motions for a certificate of appealability and 

an evidentiary hearing, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 15-7520 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7520 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 3