US v. Howell Woltz

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [998501946-2]; denying Motion to expedite decision [998541777-2]. Originating case numbers: 3:08-cv-00438-WEB, 3:06-cr-00074-WEB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998581006] Mailed to: Howell W. Woltz. [10-7638]

Appeal: 10-7638

Document: 16

Date Filed: 05/03/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7638

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HOWELL WAY WOLTZ,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cv-00438-WEB; 3:06-cr-00074-WEB-1)

Submitted:

April 28, 2011

Decided:

May 3, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Howell Way Woltz, Appellant Pro Se.
Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-7638

Document: 16

Date Filed: 05/03/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Howell Way Woltz seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)
motion.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
and

conclude

that

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record
Woltz

has

not

made

the

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.

Further, we deny the pending motions for release

pending appeal and for expedited review.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 10-7638

Document: 16

Date Filed: 05/03/2011

Page: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3