Court Opinion

ID: 4540936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-06-12 12:00:31.648983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:58.299765
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 19-6610

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

AARON COPPEDGE,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:09-cr-00064-FL-1; 4:15-cv-00009-
FL)

Submitted: May 27, 2020                                            Decided: June 4, 2020

Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron Coppedge, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Aaron Coppedge seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018)

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find that the district court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is 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 Coppedge has not

made the requisite showing. As to some of his claims, Coppedge waived appellate review

by failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

Further, the claims raised for the first time on appeal are not properly before us. See 4th

Cir. R. 34(b). 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