US v. James Saunders, Jr.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999953948-2]. A certificate of appealability is denied. Originating case number: 4:01-cr-30083-JLK-5, 4:15-cv-80839-JLK-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000007240]. Mailed to: James J. Saunders, Jr. [16-7314]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7314 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/20/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7314 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES J. SAUNDERS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:01-cr-30083-JLK-5; 4:15-cv-80839-JLK-RSB) Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: January 20, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James J. Saunders, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7314 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/20/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: James J. Saunders, 28 U.S.C. the district The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a of § 2255 appealability. 28 (2012) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” his appeal motion. a on to order issues relief seeks court’s judge denying Jr., showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Saunders has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Saunders’ motion for the appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 2 Appeal: 16-7314 Doc: 10 adequately Filed: 01/20/2017 presented in the Pg: 3 of 3 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?