US v. Wayne O'Neil

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-5, 5:11-cv-00160-RLV. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999512780]. Mailed to: Appellant. [14-6636]

Appeal: 14-6636

Doc: 10

Filed: 01/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6636

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WAYNE DONTA O'NEIL, a/k/a Wayne-Wayne,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge.
(5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-5; 5:11-cv00160-RLV)

Submitted:

January 15, 2015

Decided:

January 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Donta O’Neil, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6636

Doc: 10

Filed: 01/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Wayne
court’s

order

motion. *
judge

Donta

O’Neil

denying

relief

on

to

appeal

28

U.S.C.

his

the

district

§ 2255

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

seeks

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) (2012).

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.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.

*

In the district court, O’Neil argued for an alternate
construction of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), coram
nobis, and/or audita querela.
He has waived any further
consideration of these arguments by failing, on appeal, to
challenge the district court’s reasoning for rejecting these
alternate constructions.

2

Appeal: 14-6636

Doc: 10

Filed: 01/20/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that O’Neil has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3