US v. Okang Rochelle

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 1:05-cr-00112-WO-1, 1:12-cv-01121-WO-JLW. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000045814]. Mailed to: Appellant. [16-6743]

Appeal: 16-6743

Doc: 15

Filed: 03/21/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6743

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
OKANG KAREEN ROCHELLE,
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.
(1:05-cr-00112-WO-1; 1:12-cv-01121WO-JLW)

Submitted:

March 9, 2017

Decided:

March 21, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Okang Kareen Rochelle, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
Anand
P.
Ramaswamy,
Assistant
United
States
Attorneys,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6743

Doc: 15

Filed: 03/21/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Okang Kareen Rochelle seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) motions.

The orders are 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.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

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
Rochelle has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 16-6743

Doc: 15

contentions

are

Filed: 03/21/2017

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3