Court Opinion

ID: 9402786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 21:00:32.797346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:02.562139
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6847      Doc: 14         Filed: 06/15/2023      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 19-6847

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        LOKHEIM JERALLE CAMPBELL,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:09-cr-00855-TLW-3; 4:16-cv-01951-TLW)

        Submitted: October 31, 2022                                        Decided: June 15, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Lokheim Jeralle Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Justin William Holloway, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 19-6847       Doc: 14         Filed: 06/15/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Lokheim Jeralle Campbell 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 Campbell has not

        made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Campbell’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