UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7311
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOVAN CORNELIUS SIMON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 17-7457
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOVAN CORNELIUS SIMON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:12-cr-00742-RBH-1; 4:16-cv-03282-
RBH)
Submitted: April 24, 2018 Decided: May 2, 2018
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jovan Cornelius Simon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Jovan Cornelius Simon seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The orders are 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 Simon has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Simon’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Simon’s motions for appointment of
counsel and preparation of a transcript at government expense. 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