United States v. John Rillo ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6632
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN ADAM RILLO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:14-cr-00341-WO-1;
1:17-cv-00938-WO-JEP)
Submitted: December 17, 2020 Decided: January 6, 2021
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Adam Rillo, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Adam Rillo seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Rillo’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255motion. 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 Rillo 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