Court Opinion

ID: 9896280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:01:12.913593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:45.240508
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6722      Doc: 15         Filed: 11/06/2023      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6722

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        BRIAN O’NEAL KNOX,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:17-cr-00379-RBH-1; 4:21-cv-03028-RBH)

        Submitted: October 6, 2023                                     Decided: November 6, 2023

        Before KING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Brian O’Neal Knox, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren L. Hummel, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6722         Doc: 15       Filed: 11/06/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Brian O’Neal Knox 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, 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 Knox 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