US v. Sean Whitley, No. 14-6846 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6846 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SEAN FONTAE WHITLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:04-cr-00166-H-1; 5:14-cv-00174-H) Submitted: October 15, 2014 Decided: October 22, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean Fontae Whitley, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorney, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Sean Fontae Whitley, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. entitled to relief alternatively, error In the petition, Whitley asserted he was coram under under nobis, 28 or 28 U.S.C. for U.S.C. § 2241 a writ of § 2255 (2012), (2012), for audita a writ querela. and of The district court dismissed Whitley s § 2255 motion as successive and denied his alternate claims. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. To the extent that Whitley seeks to appeal the district court s dismissal of his § 2255 motion, we conclude that he has certificate (2012); failed of to make the Miller El v. Cockrell, showing See appealability. requisite 28 § 2253(c)(1)(B) 537 U.S. U.S.C. 322, 336 38 for a (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 85 (2000); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205 06 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of the appeal. To the extent that Whitley appeals the district court s denial of his alternate claims, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial for the reasons stated by the district court. States v. Whitley, No. 5:04-cr-00166-H-1; 2 See United 5:14-cv-00174-H (E.D.N.C. April 16, 2014). 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 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.