Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07752/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07752-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonathan David Harrison
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7752

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JONATHAN DAVID HARRISON,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, 

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00031-LHT-DLH-5; 1:08-cv-00034-LHT)

Submitted: May 13, 2010 Decided: June 1, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan David Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7752 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/01/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Jonathan David Harrison seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Harrison has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

Harrison’s motions for oral argument and to appoint counsel, and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

Appeal: 09-7752 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/01/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7752 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/01/2010 Pg: 3 of 3