Court Opinion

ID: 9962845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 21:00:47.492586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:07.742450
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6031      Doc: 7        Filed: 04/22/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 24-6031

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MARK ANTHONY JAMES, a/k/a Shoffer, a/k/a Shoff Dog,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00604-JFA-9)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                           Decided: April 22, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Mark Anthony James, Appellant Pro Se. Elliott Bishop Daniels, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6031      Doc: 7        Filed: 04/22/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Mark Anthony James appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a

        certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        James’ motion presented arguments challenging the district court’s previous denials of his

        motion for compassionate release and motion for reconsideration. Because the orders

        denying James’ compassionate release and reconsideration motions are not orders denying

        relief on a habeas petition or a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate-for which the issuance

        of a certificate of appealability would be needed to appeal, see 28 U.S.C.

        § 2253(c)(1)-James is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.        United States v. James, No.

        3:14-cr-00604-JFA-9 (D.S.C. Dec. 1, 2023). 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.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

                                                    2