United States v. Billy Jefferson, Jr. ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7154
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BILLY GENE JEFFERSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 18-7157
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BILLY GENE JEFFERSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00221-JAG-1; 3:14-cr-00066-
JAG-DJN-1; 3:16-cv-00975-JAG; 3:16-cv-00977-JAG-DJN )
Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: March 1, 2019
Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Billy Gene Jefferson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Billy Gene Jefferson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s single order denying relief on his two separate 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions.
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 Jefferson has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and
dismiss the appeals. 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