Court Opinion

ID: 9399408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 21:00:32.225209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:58.328355
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6075      Doc: 13         Filed: 06/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6075

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        TROY RAYNARD ALEXANDER,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00103-CCE; 1:20-cv-00567-
        CCE-LPA)

        Submitted: January 31, 2023                                          Decided: June 1, 2023

        Before DIAZ, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Troy Raynard Alexander, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6075         Doc: 13       Filed: 06/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Troy Raynard Alexander seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

        his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and his subsequent motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The

        orders are 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 Alexander 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