United States v. Jay Briley

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7521
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAY BONANZA BRILEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge.
(1:12-cr-00482-LO-1)
Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Jay Bonanza Briley, Appellant Pro Se. Kellen Sean Dwyer, Rosie
Haney, David Sang Hak Lee, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jay Bonanza Briley seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial
and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, as well
as denying his motion for reconsideration. We grant Briley’s
motions for leave to file an addendum to his informal brief, for
an extension of time to file a reply brief, and to add a supplement
to his reply. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
With regard to Briley’s appeal of the district court’s denial
of his motion for a new trial, we have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, while we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See United States v. Briley, No. 1:12–cr–00482–
LO–1 (E.D. Va. filed July 22, 2015; entered July 23, 2015 and Sept.
14, 2015).
Turning to the denial of § 2255 relief, 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,
2
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
Briley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
Briley’s motions for appointment of counsel and for summary
judgment, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss this
portion of 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
3