Court Opinion

ID: 9890659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 21:00:37.649084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.571679
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6287      Doc: 7         Filed: 10/12/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6287

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DAVON KELLY BENNETT, a/k/a Scooter,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Elizabeth City. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (2:15-cr-00020-D-RJ-1; 2:20-cv-
        00037-BO)

        Submitted: September 20, 2023                                 Decided: October 12, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Davon Kelly Bennett, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6287         Doc: 7      Filed: 10/12/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Davon Kelly Bennett seeks to appeal the district court’s orders and judgment

        accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Bennett’s 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 Bennett 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