United States v. Jonathan Shull

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7286

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JONATHAN LEE SHULL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:04-cr-00018-MR-1; 1:14-cv-00188-MR)

Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014

Before KING, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Lee Shull, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Lee Shull 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 Shull has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny the 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
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3