US v. Edward Jeffus, No. 12-8018 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8018 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDWARD DANE JEFFUS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:92-cr-00184-NCT-2; 1:11-cv 00326-NCT-JEP) Submitted: February 21, 2013 Before AGEE and Circuit Judge. DAVIS, Circuit Decided: Judges, and February 26, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Dane Jeffus, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina; Paul Alexander Weinman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edward orders: court s Dane (1) Jeffus seeks accepting to the appeal the district recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying Jeffus Motion for Relief from Judgment and Specific Performance/Enforcement of Plea Agreement and/or Independent Action in Equity and his Complaint for Independent Action in Equity in part and denying these motions in part motions, as successive and denying 28 his U.S.C.A. § 2255 Motion for (West Summary Supp. 2012) Judgment and Motion for a Ruling on Motion to Suppress and/or Review on the Issue Preserved; and (2) denying his motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). issue absent a appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. of showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 2 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 Jeffus has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jeffus motion for appointment of counsel, deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We also deny his pending motion to compel the U.S. Attorney to file a response and to supplement the record. 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 3