United States v. Wayne O'Neil , 589 F. App'x 203 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6636
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WAYNE DONTA O'NEIL, a/k/a Wayne-Wayne,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-5; 5:11-cv-
00160-RLV)
Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2015
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne Donta O’Neil, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wayne Donta O’Neil 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.
*
In the district court, O’Neil argued for an alternate
construction of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), coram
nobis, and/or audita querela. He has waived any further
consideration of these arguments by failing, on appeal, to
challenge the district court’s reasoning for rejecting these
alternate constructions.
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that O’Neil 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
3