Court Opinion

ID: 9397272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 21:00:53.214051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.004095
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6015      Doc: 12         Filed: 05/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6015

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        CHARLES MICHAEL LEDFORD,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cr-00060-MR-WCM-3;
        1:21-cv-00233-MR)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                           Decided: May 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Charles Michael Ledford, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6015       Doc: 12         Filed: 05/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Charles Michael Ledford seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as

        without merit his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) motion for relief from the district court’s prior

        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. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B).

        See generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015).

        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 Ledford has not made

        the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Ledford’s motion for 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