Court Opinion

ID: 9381466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 21:01:16.398788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.784498
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7122      Doc: 6         Filed: 03/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7122

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ALEXANDER RICKEY SHAW, JR., a/k/a Ruger Red,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-cr-00355-D-2; 5:21-cv-00239-D)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 21, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Alexander Rickey Shaw, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7122         Doc: 6      Filed: 03/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Alexander Rickey Shaw, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

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

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shaw 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