Court Opinion

ID: 4662277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-23 20:00:18.44774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:40.722643
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-7654

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

STEPHEN LEE FORBES, a/k/a Red,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro.    William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge.            (1:17-cr-00091-WO-1;
1:20-cv-00359-WO-LPA)

Submitted: February 18, 2021                                 Decided: February 23, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Lee Forbes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Stephen Lee Forbes seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Forbes’ 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 Forbes 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