Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07093/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07093-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond Jennings
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7093

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND RONALD JENNINGS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:05-cr-00015-MR-1; 1:12-cv-00289-MR)

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Jennings, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Lee Edwards, Amy 

Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7093 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Ronald Jennings seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely 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 Jennings has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Jennings’ motion 

for summary disposition, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 13-7093 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 13-7093 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3