US v. Jonathan Shull, No. 14-7286 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7286 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JONATHAN LEE SHULL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00018-MR-1; 1:14-cv-00188-MR) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014 Before KING, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan Lee Shull, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jonathan Lee appeal the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a of appealability. 28 (2012) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” his district motion. a on to order issues relief seeks court’s judge denying Shull showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 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 Shull has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 2 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3