Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06873/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06873-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nyron Joel Nichols
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6873

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NYRON JOEL NICHOLS, a/k/a Red,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief 

District Judge. (7:07-cr-00006-GEC-1; 7:12-cv-80544-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: October 30, 2015 Decided: November 5, 2015

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nyron Joel Nichols, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6873 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/05/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Nyron Joel Nichols 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 

Nichols has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 15-6873 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/05/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6873 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/05/2015 Pg: 3 of 3