Court Opinion

ID: 9947005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:01:00.87913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:46.033128
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6022      Doc: 15         Filed: 02/29/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6022

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        EMMANUEL JEROME GARDNER,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:14-cr-00061-BO-1; 4:21-cv-00003-BO)

        Submitted: February 23, 2024                                  Decided: February 29, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Emmanuel Jerome Gardner, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6022         Doc: 15       Filed: 02/29/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Emmanuel Jerome Gardner seeks to appeal the district court’s final 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, 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 Gardner 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