US v. Bernard Weiters, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:09-cr-00987-PMD-1,2:13-cv-02947-PMD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999460127]. Mailed to: Bernard Weiters. [14-6748]

Appeal: 14-6748

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/22/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6748

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BERNARD WEITERS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00987-PMD-1; 2:13-cv-02947-PMD)

Submitted:

October 14, 2014

Decided:

October 22, 2014

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Weiters, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6748

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/22/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Bernard

Weiters,

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

U.S.C.

district

§ 2255

appealability.

28

(2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

the

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
certificate

his

appeal

motion.

a

on

to

order

issues

relief

seeks

court’s

judge

denying

Jr.,

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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Weiters 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: 14-6748

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 10/22/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3