Court Opinion

ID: 4653883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-01-22 20:00:25.101556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:18.702920
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-7348

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

BENNY LYNN ISOM,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:03-cr-00241-TDS-1; 1:03-cr-
00242-TDS-1)

Submitted: January 19, 2021                                       Decided: January 22, 2021

Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benny Lynn Isom, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Benny Lynn Isom seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which Isom titled as a motion for a certificate of appealability. 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). 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). 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 Isom 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

                                               2