Court Opinion

ID: 6337776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-05-04 19:00:23.181246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:08.641194
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-7862

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

TONNIE FLOYD,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cr-00047-DKC-1; 8:16-cv-01953-
DKC)

Submitted: March 23, 2022                                         Decided: May 4, 2022

Before DIAZ and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paresh S. Patel, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Tonnie Floyd 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. 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 the merits, a movant

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).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Floyd has not made

the requisite showing in light of our recent decision in United States v. Crawley, 2 F.4th

(4th Cir. 2021). 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