Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07632/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07632-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jessye Wayne Powell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7632

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JESSYE WAYNE POWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00189-RJC-1; 3:11-cv-00377-RJC)

Submitted: March 13, 2015 Decided: April 7, 2015

Before SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jessye Wayne Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; 

Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7632 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/07/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jessye Wayne Powell 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 

Powell 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: 14-7632 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/07/2015 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: 14-7632 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/07/2015 Pg: 3 of 3