US v. Clarence Jupiter
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999577370-2] Originating case number: 5:93-cr-00004-MFU-1,7:98-cv-00016-MFU Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Clarence Jupiter. [14-7705]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
CLARENCE SHELDON JUPITER, a/k/a Star,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge. (5:93-cr-00004-MFU-1; 7:98-cv-00016-MFU)
August 20, 2015
August 24, 2015
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clarence Sheldon Jupiter, Appellant Pro Se.
Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The order is not appealable
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court
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
Jupiter has not made the requisite showing.
deny Jupiter’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the
Pg: 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?