Court Opinion

ID: 9838596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-06 21:00:28.342643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.966122
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6332      Doc: 9        Filed: 09/05/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6332

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        TYRENCE DENARD DOWNEY,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00109-NCT-1; 1:16-
        cv-00969-NCT-JLW)

        Submitted: August 21, 2023                                   Decided: September 5, 2023

        Before GREGORY, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Tyrence Denard Downey, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6332      Doc: 9         Filed: 09/05/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Tyrence Denard Downey 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

        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). 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17

        (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 Downey has not

        made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

        dismiss the appeal. We deny Downey’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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