US v. Christopher Jerrod Epp
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:08-cr-00027-F-1,4:16-cv-00181-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000016750]. Mailed to: Christopher Jerrod Epps FCI BUTNER MEDIUM II FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 1500 Butner, NC 27509-0000 Joseph Bart Gilbert. [16-7374]
Appeal: 16-7374
Doc: 8
Filed: 02/03/2017
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7374
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER JERROD EPPS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:08-cr-00027-F-1; 4:16-cv-00181-F)
Submitted:
January 31, 2017
Decided:
February 3, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Jerrod Epps, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian,
Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-7374
Doc: 8
Filed: 02/03/2017
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Jerrod Epps 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 of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).
28 U.S.C.
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 (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 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
Epps has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this
court
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
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?