UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7526
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHNNIE LEE LUCAS, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00230-FL-1; 5:16-cv-00607-FL)
Submitted: March 28, 2017 Decided: May 3, 2017
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnnie Lee Lucas, III, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States
Attorney, Jennifer E. Wells, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnnie Lee Lucas, III, 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 Lucas has not made
the requisite showing. His challenge to the career offender enhancement applied to his
sentence, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2(a)(2), is foreclosed by the
Supreme Court’s recent decision in Beckles v. United States, __ S. Ct. __, 2017 WL
855781 (Mar. 6, 2017), and his § 2255 motion is precluded by the waiver provision in his
plea agreement. Accordingly, we deny Lucas’s motion for a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
2
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3