US v. Sherrell Brinkley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999551335-2], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 3:91-cr-00131-GCM-1,3:02-cv-00301-GCM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999638988]. Mailed to: Sherrell Brinkley, Jennifer Hoefling. [15-6260]

Appeal: 15-6260

Doc: 14

Filed: 08/12/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6260

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SHERRELL GARY BRINKLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:91-cr-00131-GCM-1; 3:02-cv-00301-GCM)

Submitted:

July 30, 2015

Before WILKINSON and
Senior Circuit Judge.

NIEMEYER,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

August 12, 2015

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sherrell Gary Brinkley, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie
Hoefling, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6260

Doc: 14

Filed: 08/12/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Federal

inmate

Sherrell

Brinkley

appeals

the

district

court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, his
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, as supplemented, and his Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) motion.

We deny the motion for a certificate of

appealabilty and dismiss the appeal.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge

issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Brinkley has not made the requisite showing.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 15-6260

Doc: 14

contentions

are

Filed: 08/12/2015

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3