From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Mingo

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jan 11, 2018
No. 13-7156 (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2018)

Opinion

No. 13-7156

01-11-2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEMUEL CORNELIUS MINGO, Defendant - Appellant.

Kemuel Cornelius Mingo, Appellant Pro Se. Robert John Gleason, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, Senior District Judge. (3:03-cr-00014-RLV-CH-1; 3:12-cv-00235-RLV; 3:09-cv-00056-RLV) Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kemuel Cornelius Mingo, Appellant Pro Se. Robert John Gleason, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Kemuel Cornelius Mingo sought relief from his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2255 (2012), and through petitions for writ of error coram nobis and audita querela. The district court denied relief, and Mingo appeals.

To the extent that Mingo seeks to appeal that portion of the district court's order denying relief under § 2255, 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 Mingo has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of the appeal.

With respect to the remaining grounds for relief, we have reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Mingo, Nos. 3:03-cr-00014-RLV-CH-1; 3:12-cv-00235-RLV; 3:09-cv-00056-RLV (W.D.N.C. May 30, 2013).

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.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART


Summaries of

United States v. Mingo

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jan 11, 2018
No. 13-7156 (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2018)
Case details for

United States v. Mingo

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEMUEL CORNELIUS MINGO…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jan 11, 2018

Citations

No. 13-7156 (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2018)

Citing Cases

Mingo v. Bragg

On January 11, 2018, the Fourth Circuit denied Petitioner's certificate of appealability to the extent that…

Mingo v. Barnes

Mingo v. United States, No. 3:03-CR-14-RLV-CH-1, 2013 WL 2370721, at *3-4 (W.D. N.C. May 30, 2013) The Fourth…