United States v. James Baxton ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6468 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/10/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6468
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES BAXTON, a/k/a Grown, a/k/a Frank White,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:17-cr-00134-FDW-DSC-5; 3:21-cv-
00420-FDW)
Submitted: July 31, 2023 Decided: August 10, 2023
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Michael Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for
Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6468 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/10/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
James Baxton 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, 580 U.S.
100, 115-17 (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 Baxton has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Baxton’s motion for 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