Court Opinion

ID: 9405252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 21:00:37.673565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:20.470714
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6176      Doc: 20         Filed: 06/26/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 20-6176

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        LARRY LAVONNE BERRY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00247-FL-1; 5:18-cv-00268-FL)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                          Decided: June 26, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Larry Lavonne Berry, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-6176         Doc: 20       Filed: 06/26/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Larry Lavonne Berry seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

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