US v. Clarence Sheldon Jupiter

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:93-cr-00004-SGW-1,5:13-cv-80630-SGW-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999284412]. Mailed to: Jupiter. [13-7427]

Appeal: 13-7427

Doc: 7

Filed: 01/27/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7427

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CLARENCE SHELDON JUPITER, a/k/a Star,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Samuel G. Wilson,
District Judge. (5:93-cr-00004-SGW-1; 5:13-cv-80630-SGW-RSB)

Submitted:

January 23, 2014

Decided:

January 27, 2014

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Sheldon Jupiter, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald Ray
Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7427

Doc: 7

Filed: 01/27/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Clarence Sheldon Jupiter seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

construing

his

“Motion

Under

18

U.S.C.S.

§ 3742(e)” as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction and the district court’s
order denying Jupiter’s motion for reconsideration.

The orders

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Jupiter has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2

Appeal: 13-7427

We

Doc: 7

dispense

contentions

Filed: 01/27/2014

with
are

oral

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3