United States v. James Bailey, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6863
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES W. BAILEY, JR., a/k/a James W. "Bill" Bailey, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-7197
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES W. BAILEY, JR., a/k/a James W. "Bill" Bailey, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00010-MR-DLH-1; 1:14-cv-00310-MR)
Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 19, 2015
Amended: November 19, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James W. Bailey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard A. Friedman,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Richard Lee Edwards, Corey F. Ellis, Paul
Bradford Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville,
North Carolina, Benjamin Bain-Creed, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, William A. Brafford, Jonathan Henry Ferry, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
James W. Bailey, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his prejudgment motion to compel and denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291(2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,
28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The
order denying Bailey’s motion to compel is neither a final order
nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, nor is it
appealable under the cumulative judgment rule. See In re
Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we
dismiss Case No. 15-6863 for lack of jurisdiction.
The order denying Bailey’s § 2255 motion 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
3
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
Bailey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss Case No. 15-7197. 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
4