US v. Kenneth Ashe

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion for leave to file [999733449-2]; denying Motion for evidentiary hearing [999699537-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999672130-2] Originating case number: 2:12-cr-00033-MR-DLH-2,2:14-cv-00040-MR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999765096]. Mailed to: Kenneth Ashe. [15-7520]

Appeal: 15-7520

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7520

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH ASHE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City.
Martin K.
Reidinger, District Judge.
(2:12-cr-00033-MR-DLH-2; 2:14-cv00040-MR)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

March 1, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Ashe, Appellant Pro Se.
Anthony Joseph Enright,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina,
Thomas Michael Kent, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7520

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Ashe 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 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.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Ashe has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, while we

grant Ashe’s motion for leave to amend his informal brief, we
deny the pending motions for a certificate of appealability and
an evidentiary hearing, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2

Appeal: 15-7520

Doc: 11

adequately

Filed: 03/01/2016

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3