Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06911/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06911-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Michael Connelly
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6911

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL CONNELLY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (5:10-cr-00238-F-1)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Michael Connelly, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika S. 

Kotiya, Jennifer E. Wells, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6911 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Michael Connelly 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 

Connelly 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: 15-6911 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/20/2015 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: 15-6911 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3