From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Coe

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 17, 2020
No. 19-7807 (4th Cir. Apr. 17, 2020)

Opinion

No. 19-7807

04-17-2020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH ERIC COE, JR., a/k/a Junior, Defendant - Appellant.

Kenneth Eric Coe, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lauren L. Hummel, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:17-cr-00378-RBH-1; 4:19-cv-02142-RBH) Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Eric Coe, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lauren L. Hummel, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Eric Coe, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Coe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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


Summaries of

United States v. Coe

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 17, 2020
No. 19-7807 (4th Cir. Apr. 17, 2020)
Case details for

United States v. Coe

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH ERIC COE, JR.…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 17, 2020

Citations

No. 19-7807 (4th Cir. Apr. 17, 2020)