US v. Edward Jeffus

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--denying Motion to reconsider [999741817-2]; denying Motion for other relief [999728993-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999692243-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999692236-2]; denying Motion to proceed under CJA [999692231-2]. Originating case number: 6:92-cr-00184-NCT-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999812184]. Mailed to: E. Jeffus. [15-7683]

Appeal: 15-7683

Doc: 29

Filed: 05/04/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7683

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:

April 21, 2016

Decided:

May 4, 2016

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-7683

Doc: 29

Filed: 05/04/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

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

the

recommendation

of

the

magistrate

judge,

denying

Jeffus’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the court’s
January 15, 2015 order, and denying Jeffus’ Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(4) motion seeking relief from the court’s February 11, 1997
judgment.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

issues

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

(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 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

Jeffus’ motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to
2

Appeal: 15-7683

Doc: 29

Filed: 05/04/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We also deny

Jeffus’ motion for appointment of counsel along with all his
numerous pending motions.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3