Court Opinion

ID: 4568451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-22 22:36:24.488824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:39.249361
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-6993

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

JAMES MILLARD REYNOLDS, a/k/a Jamie Reynolds,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00035-JPJ-PMS-1; 1:03-cr-00116-
JPJ-PMS-2; 1:19-cv-81373-JPJ)

Submitted: September 9, 2020                                Decided: September 17, 2020

Before AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Millard Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Cagle Juhan, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       James Millard Reynolds seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are

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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Reynolds 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