United States v. Carl Eubanks ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6208
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARL A. EUBANKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:97-cr-00110-DCN-1; 2:16-cv-01400-
DCN)
Submitted: September 25, 2020 Decided: October 7, 2020
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ann Briks Walsh, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, Jeremy
A. Thompson, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carl A. Eubanks seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 Eubanks 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