US v. Gerard Well

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999628559-2] Originating case number: 0:08-cr-00608-JFA-2,0:15-cv-01303-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999703256]. Mailed to: Gerard Wells. [15-7044]

Appeal: 15-7044

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7044

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GERARD ONEIL WELLS, a/k/a J,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (0:08-cr-00608-JFA-2; 0:15-cv-01303-JFA)

Submitted:

November 17, 2015

Decided: November 20, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerard Oneil Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7044

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gerard Oneil Wells seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2012).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
When
prisoner

the

district

court

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

denies

relief

standard
find

by

that

on

the

merits,

demonstrating

the

district

a

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
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
Wells has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis,

and

dismiss

the

appeal.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 15-7044

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3