Court Opinion

ID: 6112474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-25 20:01:10.084814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:32.560475
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-7262

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

CLAYTON SAMUEL PAUL,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00342-NCT-1;
1:21-cv-00560-NCT-LPA)

Submitted: January 20, 2022                                       Decided: January 25, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clayton Samuel Paul, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Clayton Samuel Paul seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and construing his “Motion Requesting Review

of Conviction” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it as successive and

unauthorized. 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 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 Paul 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