US v. Adam Joe Jordan, III
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Adam Jordan, III. [15-6229]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
ADAM JOE LOUIS JORDAN, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Voorhees, District Judge.
June 18, 2015
June 22, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adam Joe Louis Jordan, III, Appellant Pro Se.
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Adam Joe Louis Jordan, III, seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
A certificate of appealability will not
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Jordan has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
Pg: 3 of 3
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?