Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07644/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07644-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 19-7644

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARRELL ANTONIO WRIGHT, a/k/a Bugg, a/k/a Derrick Antonio Wright,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:12-cr-00040-JFA-4; 3:16-

cv-02194-JFA)

Submitted: March 12, 2020 Decided: March 17, 2020

Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emily Deck Harrill, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7644 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/17/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Darrell Antonio Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his authorized, successive 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 Wright has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wright’s motion for 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7644 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/17/2020 Pg: 2 of 2