United States v. Nikita Coleman ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6683 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/30/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6683
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NIKITA RAY COLEMAN, a/k/a Heavy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:19-cr-00017-D-1; 4:21-cv-00142-D)
Submitted: November 18, 2022 Decided: November 30, 2022
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nikita Ray Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6683 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/30/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Nikita Ray Coleman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing 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)).
Here, the district court summarily adopted the reasoning in the Government’s
memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss, offering no independent explanation for
dismissing Coleman’s § 2255 motion. Although the district court should have enumerated
the issues Coleman raised and explained its reasons for denying relief, see United States v.
Marr, 856 F.2d 1471, 1472-73 (10th Cir. 1988), we are able to conclude through our
independent review of the record that Coleman has not made the requisite showing for a
certificate of appealability. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6683 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/30/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
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
3