UNITED STATES v. ELEY (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tahji Antonio ELEY, Defendant-Appellant.

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Emanuel Pryor, Defendant-Appellant.

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stanley Andrea Clyburn, Jr., a/k/a Drea, Defendant-Appellant.

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby Ray Lambert, Defendant-Appellant.

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronnie Donte Rand, Defendant-Appellant.

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher David Frazier, Defendant-Appellant.

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ahmad Lee Banks, Defendant-Appellant.

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny Draughn, Defendant-Appellant.

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shaniqua Shonta Burrell, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-7846, No. 20-7850, No. 20-7852, No. 20-7853, No. 20-7854, No. 20-7856, No. 20-7858, No. 20-7865, No. 20-7869

Decided: April 27, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Eric Joseph Brignac, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Appellants seek to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on their 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (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, 132 S.Ct. 641, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the records and conclude that Appellants have not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny their motions for certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.