Court Opinion

ID: 7804136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-08-29 00:00:33.04667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:29:47.695268
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6216      Doc: 6         Filed: 08/26/2022    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6216

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        GEORGE LINCOLN STANLEY, IV,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:15-cr-00166-BR-2; 5:18-cv-00577-BR)

        Submitted: August 23, 2022                                        Decided: August 26, 2022

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HEYTENS, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        George Lincoln Stanley, IV, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6216         Doc: 6       Filed: 08/26/2022      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               George Lincoln Stanley, IV, 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 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Stanley 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