United States v. Robert Maillet ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-6862
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ROBERT MAILLET,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
    Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00004-MR-DLH-1; 1:17-
    cv-00244-MR)
    Submitted: December 9, 2021                                 Decided: December 15, 2021
    Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert Maillet, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Maillet 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, 
    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)).
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Maillet 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-6862

Filed Date: 12/15/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/15/2021