US v. Edward Jeffu

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999539523-2]; denying Motion to supplement the record and informal brief [999612701-2], denying certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 6:92-cr-00184-NCT-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999652616]. Mailed to: Edward Jeffus. [15-6273]

Appeal: 15-6273

Doc: 20

Filed: 09/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6273

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDWARD DANE JEFFUS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:92-cr-00184-NCT-2)

Submitted:

August 18, 2015

Decided:

September 2, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Dane Jeffus, Appellant Pro Se.
Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6273

Doc: 20

Filed: 09/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Edward Dane Jeffus seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

accepting

dismissing

the

recommendations

Jeffus’

28

U.S.C.

of

the

§ 2255

magistrate

(2012)

judge,

motion

as

unauthorized and successive, and denying his motions for release
on bail.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or

issues

judge

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
Jeffus has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
2

We also deny Jeffus’ motion

Appeal: 15-6273

Doc: 20

Filed: 09/02/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

to supplement the record and informal brief.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3