Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06614/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06614-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Travis Jenkins
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6614

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TRAVIS JENKINS, a/k/a TJ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:13-cr-00168-F-1; 5:15-cv-00207-F)

Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Michael Duffy, Jennifer 

P. May-Parker, Roberto Francisco Ramirez, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6614 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/15/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Travis Jenkins 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 

Jenkins 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

Appeal: 16-6614 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/15/2016 Pg: 2 of 2