US v. Jay Lentz

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998664484-3] Originating case number: 1:01-cr-00150-TSE-1,1:09-cv-00788-TSE Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998746833]. Mailed to: Jay Lentz. [11-6971]

Appeal: 11-6971

Document: 14

Date Filed: 12/19/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6971

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAY E. LENTZ,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:01-cr-00150-TSE-1; 1:09-cv-00788-TSE)

Submitted:

December 15, 2011

Decided:

December 19, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jay E. Lentz, Appellant Pro Se. Erik R. Barnett, Assistant
United States Attorney, Patricia Marie Haynes, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Priya B. Viswanath, Special Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6971

Document: 14

Date Filed: 12/19/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jay

E.

Lentz

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)
motion.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (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

Accordingly,

that
we

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record
Lentz

deny

a

has

not

made

certificate

the
of

requisite

showing.

appealability,

deny

Lentz’s motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 11-6971

Document: 14

Date Filed: 12/19/2011

Page: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3