Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07985/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07985-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David L. Huggard
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7985

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID L. HUGGARD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. 

(1:13-cr-00005-JPJ-1; 1:14-cv-80772-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David L. Huggard, Appellant Pro Se. Zachary T. Lee, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7985 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

David L. Huggard seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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 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 

Huggard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

his motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of 

appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 15-7985 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7985 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 3 of 3