US v. Jack Steven Vanlaar

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999936664-2]; granting Motion to amend/correct [999941484-3]; granting Motion to strike [999941484-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00119-CCE-1,1:15-cv-00958-CCE-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999992650]. Mailed to: Jack Steven Vanlaar FCI ASHLAND FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 6001 Ashland, KY 41105-6001. [16-7193]

Appeal: 16-7193

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7193

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JACK STEVEN VANLAAR,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00119-CCE-1; 1:15-cv-00958-CCE-LPA)

Submitted:

December 20, 2016

Decided:

December 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jack Steven Vanlaar, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-7193

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jack Steven Vanlaar 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

(2012).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

A certificate of 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
Vanlaar has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma

pauperis,

and

dismiss

the

appeal.

motion to correct his informal brief.

We

grant

Vanlaar’s

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2

Appeal: 16-7193

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3