Court Opinion

ID: 4580983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-10-27 19:02:20.704564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:03.691086
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-6707

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

GREGORY WHISONANT, a/k/a Geez,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00191-ELH-1; 1:19-cv-02002-ELH)

Submitted: October 22, 2020                                   Decided: October 27, 2020

Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Whisonant, Appellant Pro Se. Brandon Keith Moore, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Gregory Whisonant 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 Whisonant has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Whisonant’s motion for 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