US v. Jeff Chesser, No. 12-7275 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7275 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEFF ERIC CHESSER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:07-cr-01392-CMC-1; 3:12-cv-01484-CMC) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Before TRAXLER, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: November 27, 2012 and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeff Eric Chesser, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United States Attorney, Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeff Eric Chesser seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing Supp. 2012) as successive motion. The order his 28 is U.S.C.A. not § 2255 appealable (West unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must 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 Chesser has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * Chesser s motion also did not qualify for consideration under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000). 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 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.
