United States v. Christopher Tatum ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 23-6144      Doc: 11         Filed: 12/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 23-6144
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CHRISTOPHER LESTER TATUM,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:19-cr-00146-DJN-1; 3:21-cv-00458-DJN)
    Submitted: December 19, 2023                                Decided: December 21, 2023
    Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Christopher Lester Tatum, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 23-6144       Doc: 11         Filed: 12/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Christopher Lester Tatum 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 Tatum has not made
    the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Tatum’s
    motion for leave to file a clarifying notice of appeal, 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: 23-6144

Filed Date: 12/21/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/22/2023