United States v. Jeffrey Prysock , 687 F. App'x 239 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7153
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY GRANT PRYSOCK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:11-cr-00171-HMH-1;
7:16-cv-02251-HMH)
Submitted: March 24, 2017 Decided: April 27, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Grant Prysock seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The
orders are 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 Prysock 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
2