Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07336/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07336-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jimmy Lawrence Nance
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7336

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JIMMY LAWRENCE NANCE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District 

Judge. (7:92-cr-00135-JPJ-RSB-1; 7:14-cv-00353; 7:14-cv-80760-

JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Lawrence Nance, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7336 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Lawrence Nance seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders treating his “Petition and Motion for a Writ of 

Coram Nobis and/or Audita Querela” as a successive and 

unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it 

on that basis, and denying Nance’s motion for reconsideration. 

The district court’s orders are not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 

(4th Cir. 2004). 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 Nance has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

Appeal: 14-7336 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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: 14-7336 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 3 of 3