Court Opinion

ID: 9405264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 21:00:49.289523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:20.569726
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7827      Doc: 17         Filed: 06/26/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 19-7827

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        BRADFORD D VOL ALLEN,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (1:15-cr-00064-MOC-WCM-1; 1:19-cv-
        00314-MOC)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                          Decided: June 26, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Bradford D Vol Allen, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 19-7827         Doc: 17       Filed: 06/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Bradford D Vol Allen 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 Allen 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

               ∗
                 We held this case in abeyance for United States v. Waters, 64 F.4th 199, 201 (4th
        Cir. 2023), in which this court determined that the rule announced in Rehaif v. United
        States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), applies retroactively to cases on collateral review.

                                                      2