Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07185/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07185-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aaron Joyner
Appellee
Gregory Pencille
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7185

GREGORY THOMAS PENCILLE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

AARON JOYNER,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (1:18-cv-02904-RMG)

Submitted: December 20, 2019 Decided: February 5, 2020

Before WYNN, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Pencille, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7185 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/05/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Pencille seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Pencille has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, 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: 19-7185 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/05/2020 Pg: 2 of 2