UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7069
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JERRY WAYNE SHEPPARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:94-cr-00122-F; 5:04-cv-00558-F)
Submitted: January 9, 2008 Decided: January 17, 2008
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry Wayne Sheppard, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Wayne Sheppard seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and
motion to reconsider. We previously vacated and remanded
Sheppard’s § 2255 action for the district court to hold an
evidentiary hearing on whether Sheppard’s appellate counsel
provided him with ineffective assistance because of a conflict of
interest. See United States v. Sheppard, 121 F. App’x 508 (4th
Cir. 2005) (No. 03-6601). The district court found that the
representation was not constitutionally ineffective. The district
court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). 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. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,
683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Sheppard has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We also deny Sheppard’s two pending motions to expedite
and his motion for leave to file exhibits to his informal brief in
- 2 -
excess of the page limit. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -