Court Opinion

ID: 1034836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-23 19:44:50.798968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:19.060616
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 13-6519

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JEROME RICO EVANS, a/k/a Wank,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:10-cr-00013-F-1; 7:12-cv-00029-F)

Submitted:   July 18, 2013                 Decided:   July 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Rico Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Jerome Rico Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying        relief     on   his    28    U.S.C.A.       § 2255   (West       Supp.

2013) motion and his self-styled motion filed pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 59(e) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 36, and has filed a motion

for a certificate of appealability.                     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)(B) (2006).

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) (2006).                   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 Evans has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                              We

                                             2
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

                                      3