Court Opinion

ID: 9397677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 21:02:29.234446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:26.909252
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6096      Doc: 7           Filed: 05/24/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                              UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 23-6096

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                     Plaintiff - Appellee

        v.

        KRISTOPHER OWEN DANIELS

                     Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:14-cr-00105-FL-1; 7:19-cv-00015-
        FL)

        Submitted: May 19, 2023                                              Decided: May 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kristopher Owen Daniels, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6096       Doc: 7         Filed: 05/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kristopher Owen Daniels seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Daniels’

        Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the denial of his 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 Daniels has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Daniels’ motion for bail or release pending

        appeal, 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