Court Opinion

ID: 5132546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-12-07 20:00:34.261821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:23:30.790285
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-6890

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

DOSHAY ANTWAN SMITH, a/k/a Dot,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:16-cr-00057-MFU-1; 7:19-cv-
81371-MFU-RSB)

Submitted: November 30, 2021                                 Decided: December 7, 2021

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Doshay Antwan Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Kari Kristina Munro, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Doshay Antwan Smith 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made

the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Smith’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