Court Opinion

ID: 4148979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-28 20:01:05.820062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:29.136592
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 16-7618

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JEFFREY A. PLEASANT,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.      Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:16-cv-00542-REP-RCY)

Submitted:   February 23, 2017            Decided:   February 28, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court’s

order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2012) petition as a

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and denying the motion as

successive.        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

Pleasant has not made the requisite showing.                      Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                         We

dispense    with       oral   argument      because      the    facts     and    legal

                                            2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3