United States v. Benny Isom ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-7348
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    BENNY LYNN ISOM,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
    Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:03-cr-00241-TDS-1; 1:03-cr-
    00242-TDS-1)
    Submitted: January 19, 2021                                       Decided: January 22, 2021
    Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Benny Lynn Isom, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Benny Lynn Isom seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion, which Isom titled as a motion for a certificate of appealability. 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 Isom 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: 20-7348

Filed Date: 1/22/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/22/2021