Court Opinion

ID: 6318528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-03-01 20:00:43.278502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:36.847061
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-7544

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

MAURICE DARNELL GETER, a/k/a Rease,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:16-cr-00314-MGL-1; 3:18-cv-01388-MGL)

Submitted: February 24, 2022                                      Decided: March 1, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Darnell Geter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Maurice Darnell Geter 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 Geter has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Geter’s motion to appoint 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