Court Opinion

ID: 4572460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-10-02 19:00:17.092289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:04.671676
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 19-7395

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

KENNETH ALLEN CARSON,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:02-cr-00813-TLW-1; 4:16-cv-01398-TLW)

Submitted: September 29, 2020                                     Decided: October 2, 2020

Before KING, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Allen Carson, Appellant Pro Se. Everett E. McMillian, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Kenneth Allen Carson 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.     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 Carson 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