US v. James Saunders, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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