Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06077/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06077-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6077

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DELTON LAMONT RAYNOR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:11-cr-00159-RAJ-DEM-1; 2:15-cv-00557-RAJ)

Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Delton Lamont Raynor, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lamont 

Creighton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, 

Virginia, Stephen Westley Haynie, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6077 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Delton Lamont Raynor seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his motions filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). Regarding the denial of Rule 

60(b) relief, we find no abuse of discretion by the district 

court, see Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) 

(noting that Rule 60(b) motions are reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion), and thus affirm this portion of the order appealed 

on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. 

Raynor, No. 2:11-cr-00159-RAJ-DEM-1 (E.D. Va. Dec. 23, 2015).

Regarding the appeal of the denial of Raynor’s § 2255 

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 

Appeal: 16-6077 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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 

Raynor 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART

Appeal: 16-6077 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 3 of 3