US v. Jack Steven Vanlaar
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Jack Steven Vanlaar FCI ASHLAND FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 6001 Ashland, KY 41105-6001. [16-7193]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
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)
December 20, 2016
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Jack Steven Vanlaar seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
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).
When the district court denies
(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
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
Slack, 529 U.S.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Vanlaar has not made the requisite showing.
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
motion to correct his informal brief.
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
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?