Court Opinion

ID: 5120616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-22 19:01:05.414422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:48.495062
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-6774

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

DELANO RAMON MCPHERSON,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:15-cr-00770-RMG-1; 2:20-cv-
00242-RMG)

Submitted: October 19, 2021                                   Decided: October 22, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Delano Ramon McPherson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Delano Ramon McPherson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The orders are 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). 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 McPherson 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