US v. Clarence Jupiter

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999645627]. Mailed to: Clarence Jupiter. [14-7705]

Appeal: 14-7705

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7705

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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)

Submitted:

August 20, 2015

Decided:

August 24, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Sheldon Jupiter, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald Ray
Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7705

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Clarence
court’s

Sheldon

order

Jupiter

denying

his

seeks

Fed.

R.

to

appeal

Civ.

P.

the

60(b)

district

motion

for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
unless

a

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

The order is not appealable

judge

issues

a

certificate

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

both

on

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
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
Jupiter has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny Jupiter’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are
2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 14-7705

Doc: 11

materials

before

Filed: 08/24/2015

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3