Court Opinion

ID: 3181586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-01 20:04:53.066546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:09:17.204005
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 15-7520

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

KENNETH ASHE,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City.          Martin K.
Reidinger, District Judge.   (2:12-cr-00033-MR-DLH-2; 2:14-cv-
00040-MR)

Submitted:   February 25, 2016               Decided:    March 1, 2016

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Ashe, Appellant Pro Se.       Anthony Joseph Enright,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina,
Thomas Michael Kent, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Kenneth Ashe 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

Ashe has not made the requisite showing.                     Accordingly, while we

grant Ashe’s motion for leave to amend his informal brief, we

deny the pending motions for a certificate of appealability and

an evidentiary hearing, 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