US v. Christopher Oden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00056-JPB-JES-1,3:13-cv-00093-JPB-JES Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999479831]. Mailed to: Christopher Oden. [14-7219]

Appeal: 14-7219

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/21/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7219

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM ODEN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge.
(3:11-cr-00056-JPB-JES-1; 3:13-cv-00093JPB-JES)

Submitted:

November 18, 2014

Decided:

November 21, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher William Oden, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan,
Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia;
Erin
K.
Reisenweber,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Martinsburg, West Virginia; Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant
United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7219

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/21/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Christopher William Oden seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

accepting

the

recommendation

of

the

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

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

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 Oden has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 14-7219

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 11/21/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

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

3