Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07764/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07764-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dewayne Lamont Richmond
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7764

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEWAYNE LAMONT RICHMOND,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,

District Judge. (1:13-cr-00055-CCE-1; 1:15-cv-00572-CCE-JLW)

Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dewayne Lamont Richmond, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis 

Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7764 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Dewayne Lamont Richmond 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 

Richmond 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

Appeal: 15-7764 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7764 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3