US v. Bennie Mack, Jr., No. 15-7126 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7126 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BENNIE AUSTIN MACK, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00267-WO-1; 1:13-cv-00175WO-JLW) Submitted: December 3, 2015 Decided: December 9, 2015 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bennie Austin Mack, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Frank Joseph Chut, Jr., Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bennie court’s Austin order Mack, accepting Jr., the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a prisoner the See 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). district court satisfies this jurists would reasonable appealability. substantial constitutional right.” When of denies relief standard find by that on the merits, demonstrating the district a that court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must 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 Mack has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of with appealability oral argument and dismiss because 2 Accordingly, we deny a the the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the 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.
