Court Opinion

ID: 9837970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:00:49.710037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.754049
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6337      Doc: 7         Filed: 09/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6337

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        CHARLES MURPHY GILLIS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:76-cr-00020-BO-12; 5:22-cv-00428-BO)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                   Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Charles Murphy Gillis, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6337         Doc: 7      Filed: 09/01/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Charles Murphy Gillis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

        his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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 Gillis 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