Court Opinion

ID: 4117454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-01-20 20:01:00.550075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:44.828412
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 16-7314

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JAMES J. SAUNDERS, JR.,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville.    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:01-cr-30083-JLK-5; 4:15-cv-80839-JLK-RSB)

Submitted:   January 17, 2017             Decided:   January 20, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James J. Saunders, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia,
Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       James     J.   Saunders,    Jr.,      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

Saunders has not made the requisite showing.                             Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Saunders’ motion for

the appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal.                          We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

                                            2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                DISMISSED

                                     3