Court Opinion

ID: 9898630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 21:00:45.938859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:07.092430
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6053      Doc: 8         Filed: 11/13/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6053

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        WILLIAM MAURICE SADDLER, a/k/a Reece, a/k/a King,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-cr-00251-FL-1; 5:21-cv-00016-FL)

        Submitted: October 26, 2023                                 Decided: November 13, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        William Maurice Saddler, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6053      Doc: 8         Filed: 11/13/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               William Maurice Saddler seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Saddler’s 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17

        (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 Saddler has not made

        the requisite showing.      Accordingly, we deny Saddler’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