Court Opinion

ID: 4670210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-03-22 19:00:31.305354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:50.402123
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-7426

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

EDWARD DANE JEFFUS,

                    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. (6:92-cr-00184-NCT-2; 1:18-cv-
00080-NCT-JEP)

Submitted: March 18, 2021                                         Decided: March 22, 2021

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Dane Jeffus, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Edward Dane Jeffus seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and construing Jeffus’ motion to take judicial

notice as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it as successive and unauthorized. 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,

as here, 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 Jeffus 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