Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06636/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06636-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wayne Donta O'Neil
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6636

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

WAYNE DONTA O'NEIL, a/k/a Wayne-Wayne,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-5; 5:11-cv00160-RLV)

Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Donta O’Neil, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Miller, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy 

Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6636 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Donta O’Neil 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. 

 * In the district court, O’Neil argued for an alternate 

construction of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), coram 

nobis, and/or audita querela. He has waived any further 

consideration of these arguments by failing, on appeal, to 

challenge the district court’s reasoning for rejecting these 

alternate constructions.

Appeal: 14-6636 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that O’Neil 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: 14-6636 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3