Court Opinion

ID: 9882028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:00:47.188596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:30.225841
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6436      Doc: 9         Filed: 10/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6436

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ANTHONY DEPREE SMITH, a/k/a Straight,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:18-cr-00016-BO-1; 7:22-cv-00037-
        BO)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Anthony Depree Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6436         Doc: 9       Filed: 10/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Anthony Depree Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

        his counseled 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 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

               ∗
                 We decline to consider the ineffective assistance of counsel claims related to
        Smith’s sentence that are raised for the first time on appeal. See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d
        276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014).

                                                      2