Court Opinion

ID: 4456278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-11-15 20:00:17.802184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:27.375693
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 19-7003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

CARTER TILLERY,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:10-cr-00223-JAG-1; 3:14-cv-00275-
JAG)

Submitted: November 8, 2019                                 Decided: November 15, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carter Tillery, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Carter Tillery seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits,

a prisoner satisfies this standard by showing that reasonable jurists would 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 Tillery 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