Court Opinion

ID: 7375396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-28 23:16:42.041921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:21:11.737033
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6789      Doc: 13         Filed: 03/22/2022      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 19-6789

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ROMAIL LEACH, a/k/a Chopper,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:05-cr-00770-TLW-4; 4:16-cv-02125-TLW)

        Submitted: February 25, 2022                                      Decided: March 22, 2022

        Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Romail Leach, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 19-6789       Doc: 13         Filed: 03/22/2022      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Romail Leach 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 Leach has not made

        the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Leach’s motion for a certificate of

        appealability, deny Leach’s motion to appoint counsel, 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