Filed: Jun. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6044 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERMAINE LAMONT WOOD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:99-cr-00144-MHL-RCY-1; 3:16-cv-00635-MHL) Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 17, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6044 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERMAINE LAMONT WOOD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:99-cr-00144-MHL-RCY-1; 3:16-cv-00635-MHL) Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 17, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6044
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERMAINE LAMONT WOOD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:99-cr-00144-MHL-RCY-1;
3:16-cv-00635-MHL)
Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 17, 2019
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jermaine Lamont Wood, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Lamont Wood 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 Wood has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2