UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6606
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES DARNELL WINTONS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00215-FDW-1; 3:13-cv-00150-FDW)
Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Darnell Wintons, Appellant Pro Se. Kelli Hamby Ferry,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Darnell Wintons 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 Wintons has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Wintons’ supplemental informal
brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255
motion to challenge his sentence based on the decision in United
States v. Johnson, 1235 S. Ct. 2557 (2015). See United States v.
2
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). Because North
Carolina robbery with a dangerous weapon, N.C. Gen Stat. Ann. § 14-
87 (West 2014), qualifies as a violent felony under the force
clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) (2012), Wintons’ claim does
not satisfy the criteria for authorization. See 28 U.S.C. §
2255(h) (2012). Therefore, we deny authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion.
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
3