Court Opinion

ID: 4653882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-01-22 20:00:24.543681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:18.499716
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-7293

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL SALISBURY,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00621-GLR-1; 1:19-cv-00268-GLR)

Submitted: January 19, 2021                                       Decided: January 22, 2021

Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Michael Salisbury, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Christopher Michael Salisbury seeks to appeal the district court’s 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Salisbury has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Salisbury’s motion for 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