United States of America v. Jeffrey Lee Mccotter, a/k/a Old Man Jeff, a/k/a Old Man

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6454
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY LEE MCCOTTER, a/k/a Old Man Jeff, a/k/a Old Man,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00075-D-1; 4:14-cv-00100-D)
Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Lee McCotter, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Lee McCotter seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(2012). 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 (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 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
McCotter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
McCotter’s 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 before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --