Court Opinion

ID: 9945995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 21:01:00.471573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:24:21.026713
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7256      Doc: 5        Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7256

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        BOBBIE RAY EDWARDS, a/k/a Tank,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:11-cr-00055-AWA-DEM-10;
        4:22-cv-00057-AWA)

        Submitted: February 22, 2024                                 Decided: February 27, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Bobbie Ray Edwards, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7256       Doc: 5         Filed: 02/27/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Bobbie Ray Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28

        U.S.C. § 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized and denying his motion for an audio

        recording. The denial of a § 2255 motion 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 Edwards has not

        made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

        dismiss this part of the appeal.

               Turning to the rest of the appeal, for which Edwards does not need a certificate of

        appealability, see Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009), we discern no reversible

        error in the district court’s decision to deny Edwards’ motion for an audio recording. We

        therefore affirm this part of the court’s order. United States v. Edwards, No. 4:11-cr-

        00055-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va. Nov. 8, 2023).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7256         Doc: 5    Filed: 02/27/2024   Pg: 3 of 3

              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 IN PART,
                                                                          AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                  3