US v. James Bailey, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00010-MR-DLH-1,1:14-cv-00310-MR. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000032095]. Mailed to: James W. Bailey Jr.; William A. Brafford; Jonathan Henry Ferry;. [16-7359]

Appeal: 16-7359

Doc: 11

Filed: 02/28/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7359

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES W. BAILEY, JR., a/k/a James W. “Bill” Bailey, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00010-MR-DLH-1; 1:14-cv-00310-MR)

Submitted:

February 23, 2017

Decided:

February 28, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James W. Bailey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Benjamin Bain-Creed,
Jonathan Henry Ferry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charlotte, North Carolina, Richard Lee Edwards, Amy Elizabeth
Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Paul Bradford Taylor,
Corey F. Ellis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7359

Doc: 11

Filed: 02/28/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James W. Bailey, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

denying

his

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

60(b)

motion

for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
unless

a

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

The order is not appealable

judge

issues

a

certificate

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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
Bailey has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 16-7359

Doc: 11

contentions

are

Filed: 02/28/2017

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3