US v. Jimmy Wright, No. 15-6022 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6022 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JIMMY ALONZO WRIGHT, a/k/a Jimmy Alfonzo Wright, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00006-RJC-1; 3:12-cv-00460-RJC) Submitted: April 28, 2015 Decided: May 4, 2015 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Alonzo Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jimmy Alonzo Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions. * The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a of appealability. U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” 28 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 Wright has not made the requisite showing. a certificate of appealability * and Accordingly, we deny dismiss the appeal. We The court correctly construed the nunc pro tunc motion, the motion to alter or amend, and the motion for summary judgment as successive and unauthorized § 2255 motions. 2 dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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.
