Court Opinion

ID: 9382158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 21:01:30.596301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.381422
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6809      Doc: 37         Filed: 03/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 20-6809

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        NILES M. BELK, a/k/a Damon Jones,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00144-RJC-2; 3:16-cv-00342-
        RJC)

        Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 23, 2023

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Niles M. Belk, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-6809      Doc: 37          Filed: 03/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Niles M. Belk 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 Belk has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

        appeal. We also deny Belk’s motion to appoint counsel. 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