United States v. Jeff Chesser ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7275
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFF ERIC CHESSER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:07-cr-01392-CMC-1; 3:12-cv-01484-CMC)
Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 27, 2012
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeff Eric Chesser, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant
United States Attorney, Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeff Eric Chesser seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 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) (2006). 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)
(2006). 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 Chesser has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
*
Chesser’s motion also did not qualify for consideration
under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). In re Jones,
226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000).
2
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3