US v. Aaron Lyles, No. 13-7851 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7851 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AARON JEROME LYLES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:00-cr-00055-H-1; 4:13-cv-00116-H) Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 28, 2014 Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron Jerome Lyles, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Aaron Jerome Lyles seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent a constitutional of appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. 28 showing U.S.C. of the denial § 2253(c)(2). of When a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 Lyles has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Lyles motion for a transcript We dispense at government with oral expense, argument 2 and because dismiss the the facts appeal. and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
