Court Opinion

ID: 9951459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-16 21:00:40.619647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:40:35.812610
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7097      Doc: 6         Filed: 03/15/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7097

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        FARUQ ROSE, a/k/a Faruq Uthman Rose,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:17-cr-00069-D-1; 7:23-cv-00179-D)

        Submitted: March 12, 2024                                         Decided: March 15, 2024

        Before GREGORY, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Faruq Rose, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7097         Doc: 6       Filed: 03/15/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Faruq Rose 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 Rose 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