US v. James Darnell Winton


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00215-FDW-1,3:13-cv-00150-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999949484]. Mailed to: James Darnell Wintons FCI MCDOWELL FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 1009 Welch, WV 24801. [16-6606]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6606 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6606 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES DARNELL WINTONS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00215-FDW-1; 3:13-cv-00150-FDW) Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Darnell Wintons, Appellant Pro Se. Kelli Hamby Ferry, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6606 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: James Darnell Wintons 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 28 U.S.C. 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. record and showing. conclude that We have independently reviewed the Wintons has not made the requisite Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Wintons’ supplemental informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion to challenge his sentence based on the decision in United States v. Johnson, 1235 S. Ct. 2557 (2015). 2 See United States v. Appeal: 16-6606 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 3 of 3 Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). Because North Carolina robbery with a dangerous weapon, N.C. Gen Stat. Ann. § 1487 (West 2014), qualifies as a violent felony under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) (2012), Wintons’ claim does not satisfy the criteria for authorization. 2255(h) (2012). Therefore, we deny See 28 U.S.C. § authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?