US v. Terry Bennett, No. 11-6689 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6689 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. TERRY JACKSON BENNETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-00315-RJC-1; 3:08-cv00410-RJC) Submitted: November 7, 2011 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit November 18, 2011 Judges, and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry Jackson Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terry Jackson Bennett seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. justice or judge The orders are not appealable unless a circuit issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). of appealability. 28 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 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack, We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bennett has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. McNamara, 74 F.3d 514, 516-17 (4th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 adequately presented in the materials before the 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.
