United States v. Richard Koonce, III , 696 F. App'x 114 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6350
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD J. KOONCE, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Charlottesville. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (3:14-cr-00025-GEC-RSB-8; 3:16-cv-
80968-GEC-RSB)
Submitted: August 16, 2017 Decided: August 22, 2017
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard J. Koonce, III, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States
Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia; Ronald Mitchell Huber, Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard J. Koonce, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Koonce has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Koonce’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