Court Opinion

ID: 4510253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-02-25 20:00:19.24797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:26.997336
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-7570

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

KHALIEF BYRD, a/k/a Philly,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cr-00122-REP-1; 3:16-cv-
00384-REP)

Submitted: February 20, 2020                                 Decided: February 25, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Khalief Byrd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Khalief Byrd seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits,

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 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 Byrd has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Byrd’s motion for appointment of counsel,

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