US v. Gerald Michael

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00379-CCE-1,1:14-cv-00026-CCE-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999665292]. Mailed to: Gerald Michael. [15-6804]

Appeal: 15-6804

Doc: 9

Filed: 09/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6804

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GERALD EUGENE MICHAEL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00379-CCE-1; 1:14-cv-00026-CCE-LPA)

Submitted:

September 17, 2015

Decided:

September 23, 2015

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Eugene Michael, Appellant Pro Se. Randall Stuart Galyon,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6804

Doc: 9

Filed: 09/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gerald Eugene Michael seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
Id. § 2253(c)(2).

When the district court denies relief on the

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
“reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment
of

the

constitutional

claims

debatable

or

wrong.”

Slack

v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).

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

constitutional right.

a

debatable

claim

of

the

denial

of

a

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Michael has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 15-6804

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 09/23/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3