US v. Adam Joe Jordan, III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:11-cr-00011-RLV-DSC-1,5:14-cv-00090-RLV Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999606407]. Mailed to: Adam Jordan, III. [15-6229]

Appeal: 15-6229

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6229

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ADAM JOE LOUIS JORDAN, III,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge.
(5:11-cr-00011-RLV-DSC-1; 5:14-cv00090-RLV)

Submitted:

June 18, 2015

Decided:

June 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adam Joe Louis Jordan, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Thomas Richard
Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Asheville, North Carolina; William Michael Miller, Assistant
United States Attorney, Dana Owen Washington, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6229

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Adam Joe Louis Jordan, III, seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion.
or

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice

judge

issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

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
Jordan has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 15-6229

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 06/22/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

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

3