Court Opinion

ID: 9375207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 21:00:21.463439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.088325
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7002      Doc: 9         Filed: 02/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7002

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MEGAN ELIZABETH BARDEEN,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:18-cr-00179-FL-1, 7:20-cv-00049-
        FL)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                  Decided: February 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        David Jonathon Joffe, JOFFE LAW, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7002         Doc: 9      Filed: 02/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Megan Elizabeth Bardeen seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Bardeen’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).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bardeen 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