Court Opinion

ID: 8652416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 21:00:30.262113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:56:35.786357
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7027      Doc: 7         Filed: 11/23/2022    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7027

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        CHARLES DUNCAN PIPPINS, a/k/a Chuck,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:17-cr-00007-1; 3:19-cv-00876)

        Submitted: November 17, 2022                                Decided: November 23, 2022

        Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Charles Duncan Pippins, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7027         Doc: 7       Filed: 11/23/2022      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Charles Duncan Pippins seeks to appeal the district court’s amended order accepting

        the recommendation of the magistrate judge in part and denying relief on Pippins’

        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 Pippins 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