Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07193/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07193-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Jack Steven Vanlaar
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7193

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JACK STEVEN VANLAAR,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:13-cr-00119-CCE-1; 1:15-cv-00958-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: December 20, 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jack Steven Vanlaar, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, 

Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7193 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jack Steven Vanlaar 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 

Vanlaar 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 grant Vanlaar’s 

motion to correct his informal brief. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 16-7193 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7193 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3