United States v. Thomas Byrd ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6625
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS MARSHALL BYRD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:11-cr-00203-WO-1; 1:15-cv-
01028-WO-LPA)
Submitted: November 19, 2019 Decided: December 4, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Marshall Byrd, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Marshall Byrd seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Byrd’s 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 Byrd has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Byrd’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