Court Opinion

ID: 9406110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 21:01:44.795495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:26.827480
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6406      Doc: 17         Filed: 06/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6406

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        LEANDRE BUDDEN, a/k/a Bubba,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-cr-00769-JFA-1; 3:18-cv-
        02239-JFA)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                           Decided: June 28, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Leandre Budden, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6406      Doc: 17          Filed: 06/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Leandre Budden seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28

        U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The orders are 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 Budden has not made

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

        appeal. We also deny as unnecessary Budden’s Motion to Suspend Rules as to Color Codes

        of Briefs and/or Page Limitations. 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

               *
                 We decline to consider Budden’s challenges to his conviction and sentence that he
        raises for the first time on appeal. See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014).

                                                      2