Court Opinion

ID: 9555410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 21:00:35.6259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:21.786717
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6468      Doc: 9         Filed: 08/10/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6468

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JAMES BAXTON, a/k/a Grown, a/k/a Frank White,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:17-cr-00134-FDW-DSC-5; 3:21-cv-
        00420-FDW)

        Submitted: July 31, 2023                                          Decided: August 10, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jeffrey Michael Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for
        Appellant.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6468      Doc: 9         Filed: 08/10/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               James Baxton 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 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 Baxton has not made

        the requisite showing.      Accordingly, we deny Baxton’s motion for 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