Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07316/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07316-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 19-7316

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICKY DOUGLAS CRAWFORD, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:14-cr-00138-WO-1; 1:16-cv00476-WO-JEP)

Submitted: May 5, 2020 Decided: May 12, 2020

Before WYNN, FLOYD, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Douglas Crawford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7316 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/12/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Douglas Crawford, 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 

could 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 Crawford 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7316 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/12/2020 Pg: 2 of 2