Court Opinion

ID: 9410658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-22 21:00:38.196826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:59.364519
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6817      Doc: 7         Filed: 07/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6817

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        CAMERON JAMAL MCMANUS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (3:20-cr-00221-KDB-DCK-3, 3:22-cv-00250-
        KDB)

        Submitted: November 2, 2022                                         Decided: July 21, 2023

        Before GREGORY, WYNN, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Cameron Jamal McManus, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6817         Doc: 7       Filed: 07/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Cameron Jamal McManus seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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, 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 McManus 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