US v. Christopher Daniels, No. 14-7035 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7035 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER CORNELIUS DANIELS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:11-cr-00057-BR-1; 5:14-cv-00337-BR) Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 22, 2014 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Cornelius Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Nathan A. Huff, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Evan Rikhye, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher Cornelius Daniels seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as successive and unauthorized his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his alternate requests for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) and through a writ of audita querela. Having reviewed the record, we affirm the district court s denial of § 2241 and audita querela relief. See Daniels v. United States, Nos. 5:11-cr-00057-BR-1; 5:14-cv00337-BR (E.D.N.C. June 18, 2014). That part of the district court s order denying Daniels s motion as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion is not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice or judge 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 debatable merits, that court s 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 2 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. We have independently reviewed record and conclude that Daniels has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, affirm in part, and dismiss in part. 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. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED 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.
