Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-20-06135/USCOURTS-ca4-20-06135-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 20-6135

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (7:01-cr-00027-BO-1)

Submitted: May 21, 2020 Decided: June 11, 2020

Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Doe, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6135 Doc: 19 Filed: 06/11/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

John Doe appeals the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order dismissing his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) petition and denying his motion to seal. First addressing the motion 

to seal, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

this portion of the district court’s order for the reasons stated by the district court. See

United States v. Doe, No. 7:01-cr-00027-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 15, 2020).

Turning to the portion of the district court’s order denying Doe’s Rule 60(b) motion, 

this portion of 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); see also United States v. McRae, 

793 F.3d 392, 399-400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 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. See 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 Doe has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this 

portion of the appeal. Additionally, we deny Doe’s motion to seal his briefs and his motion 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6135 Doc: 19 Filed: 06/11/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

to proceed under a pseudonym. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6135 Doc: 19 Filed: 06/11/2020 Pg: 3 of 3