Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-20-06052/USCOURTS-ca4-20-06052-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry Antonio Burleigh
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6052

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LARRY ANTONIO BURLEIGH,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cr-00049-HEH-2; 3:16-cv00525-HEH)

Submitted: May 11, 2020 Decided: May 18, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Antonio Burleigh, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6052 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/18/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Antonio Burleigh seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The 

orders are 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 Burleigh 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: 20-6052 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/18/2020 Pg: 2 of 2