Court Opinion

ID: 9402870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-17 21:00:27.538393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:03.214240
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7623      Doc: 12         Filed: 06/16/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-7623

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MELDAMION ANTOINE HUGULEY,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:18-cr-00205-WO-1; 1:19-cv-
        00524-WO-LPA)

        Submitted: April 24, 2023                                         Decided: June 16, 2023

        Before RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Meldamion Antoine Huguley, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7623       Doc: 12         Filed: 06/16/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Meldamion Antoine Huguley seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment

        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 Huguley has not

        made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

        dismiss the appeal. We also deny as moot Huguley’s motion for abeyance. 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