Court Opinion

ID: 9404377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 21:03:18.496478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.672188
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6052      Doc: 6        Filed: 06/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6052

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JONATHAN MORRISON NORRIS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cr-00242-TDS-1; 1:19-
        cv-00795-TDS-LPA)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                            Decided: June 21, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jonathan Morrison Norris, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6052         Doc: 6      Filed: 06/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jonathan Morrison Norris seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

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