US v. Bennie Austin Mack, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00267-WO-1,1:13-cv-00175-WO-JLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999715116]. Mailed to: Bennie Mack, Jr.. [15-7126]

Appeal: 15-7126

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/09/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7126

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BENNIE AUSTIN MACK, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge.
(1:08-cr-00267-WO-1; 1:13-cv-00175WO-JLW)

Submitted:

December 3, 2015

Decided:

December 9, 2015

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bennie Austin Mack, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Frank Joseph Chut,
Jr., Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant
United
States
Attorneys,
Greensboro,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7126

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/09/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Bennie
court’s

Austin

order

Mack,

accepting

Jr.,
the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

of

the
the

district

magistrate

judge and 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

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

prisoner

the

See

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not
showing

of

the

denial

of

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

district

court

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

appealability.

substantial

constitutional right.”
When

of

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

must

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
Mack has not made the requisite showing.
certificate
dispense

of

with

appealability
oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny a

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 15-7126

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 12/09/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3