Court Opinion

ID: 9940645
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 21:01:26.927325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:29.647777
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7364      Doc: 7         Filed: 02/13/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7364

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DEVONTA OZELL SMITH,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00054-FL-1; 5:21-cv-00157-FL)

        Submitted: January 10, 2024                                   Decided: February 13, 2024

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Devonta Ozell Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7364         Doc: 7      Filed: 02/13/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Devonta Ozell Smith 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 showing 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 show 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 Smith 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