US v. Michael McDowell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [1000046059-2] Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00033-F-1,5:16-cv-00364-F. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000055264]. Mailed to: Michael McDowell. [16-7543]

Appeal: 16-7543

Doc: 6

Filed: 04/04/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7543

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL JERMAINE MCDOWELL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:15-cr-00033-F-1; 5:16-cv-00364-F)

Submitted:

March 30, 2017

Decided:

April 4, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Jermaine McDowell, Appellant Pro Se.
Pender,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Carolina, for Appellee.

Donald Russell
Raleigh,
North

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7543

Doc: 6

Filed: 04/04/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael

Jermaine

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

U.S.C.

district

§ 2255

appealability.

28

(2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

the

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
certificate

his

appeal

motion.

a

on

to

order

issues

relief

seeks

court’s

judge

denying

McDowell

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
McDowell has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny his motion for 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

2

Appeal: 16-7543

before

Doc: 6

this

Filed: 04/04/2017

court

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3