US v. Douglas Gene Whitfield, No. 15-7507 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7507 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DOUGLAS GENE WHITFIELD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00121-D-3; 5:11-cv-00610-D) Submitted: December 15, 2015 Before GREGORY Circuit Judge. and FLOYD, Decided: December 18, 2015 Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas G. Whitfield, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Assistant United States Attorney, Felice McConnell Corpening, Kimberly Ann Moore, Yvonne Victoria Watford-McKinney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Douglas Gene Whitfield seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it on that basis. justice or The is not issues judge order a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealable of unless a circuit appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 Whitfield has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.
