Court Opinion

ID: 2820514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-07-27 19:01:48.456696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:41.241927
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 15-6454

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JEFFREY LEE MCCOTTER, a/k/a Old Man Jeff, a/k/a Old Man,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00075-D-1; 4:14-cv-00100-D)

Submitted:   July 23, 2015                 Decided:   July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Lee McCotter, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Jeffrey Lee McCotter 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

McCotter has not made the requisite showing.           Accordingly, we deny

McCotter’s motion for 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

                                     2