Court Opinion

ID: 7639603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 21:00:29.713779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:26:26.897954
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7499      Doc: 17         Filed: 07/28/2022     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-7499

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ADAM GUNN, II,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:18-cr-00020-GMG-RWT-4; 3:20-cv-
        00099-GMG)

        Submitted: July 26, 2022                                          Decided: July 28, 2022

        Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Adam Gunn, II, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7499         Doc: 17      Filed: 07/28/2022      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Adam Gunn, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting in part the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Gunn’s 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 Gunn 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