Court Opinion

ID: 4662278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-23 20:00:19.011142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:40.779699
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-7645

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

RAYMOND LEWIS PERRY,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:11-cr-00042-RGD-FBS-1; 2:20-
cv-00524-RGD)

Submitted: February 18, 2021                                 Decided: February 23, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Lewis Perry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Raymond Lewis Perry seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment

dismissing without prejudice 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 Perry 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