Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07569/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07569-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory James Burgess
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7569

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GREGORY JAMES BURGESS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00099-BO-2; 5:16-cv-00479-

BO)

Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: February 25, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory James Burgess, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7569 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/25/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory James Burgess 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 Burgess has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Burgess’ 

motion to appoint counsel, 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: 19-7569 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/25/2020 Pg: 2 of 2