Court Opinion

ID: 9363378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-16 00:00:39.56943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:31.630840
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7026      Doc: 17         Filed: 01/13/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-7026

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        KELVIN MELTON, a/k/a Dizzy, a/k/a Old Man,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00072-D-1; 5:20-cv-00233-D)

        Submitted: December 21, 2022                                      Decided: January 13, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kelvin Melton, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7026       Doc: 17         Filed: 01/13/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kelvin Melton seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting in part and denying

        in part 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, 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 Melton has not made

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

        appeal. We grant Melton’s motion for leave to file a supplemental informal brief but deny

        his motion for appointment of 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