Court Opinion

ID: 9905687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 21:01:07.747163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:51.268507
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6851      Doc: 5        Filed: 11/28/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6851

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        LEONARD EARL ROULHAC,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:09-cr-00115-MSD-TEM-1; 2:23-cv-
        00034-MSD)

        Submitted: November 21, 2023                                Decided: November 28, 2023

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

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Leonard Earl Roulhac, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6851         Doc: 5      Filed: 11/28/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Leonard Earl Roulhac seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28

        U.S.C. § 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized. 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, as here, 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 Roulhac 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