Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07481/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07481-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 19-7481

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PAUL STREETER,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (4:93-cr-00002-BO-2; 4:19-cv00064-BO)

Submitted: February 18, 2020 Decided: February 21, 2020

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Streeter, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7481 Doc: 6 Filed: 02/21/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Paul Streeter 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 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 Streeter 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: 19-7481 Doc: 6 Filed: 02/21/2020 Pg: 2 of 2