US v. Owen Oddman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:96-cr-00053-MR-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999952158]. Mailed to: Owen Oddman FCI JESUP FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 2680 301 South Jesup, GA 31599-0000. [16-6744]

Appeal: 16-6744

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6744

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OWEN ODDMAN, a/k/a Owen Odman, a/k/a Charles Llewlyn, a/k/a
Star,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Shelby.
Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (4:96-cr-00053-MR-1)

Submitted:

October 18, 2016

Decided:

October 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Owen Oddman, Appellant Pro Se.
Jill Westmoreland Rose, United
States Attorney, Elizabeth Margaret Greenough, Adam Christopher
Morris, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
Carolina; Richard Lee Edwards, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United
States
Attorneys,
Asheville,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6744

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Owen Oddman appeals from the district court’s order denying
relief on his motion to correct the record, Fed. R. Crim. P. 36,
which the court construed, in part, as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion.

To the extent that the district court denied relief on

Oddman’s Rule 36 motion, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court.

United States v. Oddman, No. 4:96-cr-00053-MR-1

(W.D.N.C. Apr. 5, 2016; Apr. 22, 2016).
To

the

extent

that

Oddman

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order denying relief on § 2255 motion, the order is not
appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

or

judge

issues

a

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
debatable

merits,
that

court’s
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

2

motion

states

a

debatable

Appeal: 16-6744

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/21/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack, 529 U.S.

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

certificate

dispense

of

with

contentions

are

appealability

oral

argument

adequately

and

dismiss

because

presented

Accordingly, we deny

in

the
the

the

appeal.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

3