US v. Wilkins McNair, Jr., No. 14-6417 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6417 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILKINS MCNAIR, JR., Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-6426 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILKINS MCNAIR, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00281-CCB-1; 1:11-cv-01902-CCB; 1:09-cr-00320-CCB-1; 1:12-cv-03546-CCB) Submitted: July 30, 2014 Decided: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. August 20, 2014 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wilkins McNair, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jefferson McClure Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Wilkins McNair, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. appealable § 2255 unless (2012) a motions. circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice The orders or judge are not issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McNair has not made the requisite showing. deny a certificate of appealability in No. Accordingly, we 14-6417, deny McNair s motion for a certificate of appealability in No. 146426, and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument 3 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4
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.
