US v. Jay Jenerette

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:11-cr-00156-FL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999404761]. Mailed to: J. Jenerette. [14-6618]

Appeal: 14-6618

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/29/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6618

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAY AVERY JENERETTE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:11-cr-00156-FL-1)

Submitted:

July 24, 2014

Before FLOYD and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

July 29, 2014

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jay Avery Jenerette, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6618

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/29/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jay
court’s

Avery

order

Jenerette

adopting

the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

of

the
the

district

magistrate

judge and 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

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

constitutional

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

right.”

28

showing
U.S.C.

of

the

denial

§ 2253(c)(2).

of

When

a
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.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Jenerette has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

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

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 14-6618

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 07/29/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3