United States v. Victor Lebron ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 23-6968      Doc: 6        Filed: 12/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 23-6968
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    VICTOR LEBRON, a/k/a Victor Labron,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big
    Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00008-JPJ-PMS-2; 2:22-cv-
    81510-JPJ)
    Submitted: December 19, 2023                                Decided: December 27, 2023
    Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Victor Lebron, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, Assistant United States
    Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 23-6968         Doc: 6      Filed: 12/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Victor Lebron 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 Lebron 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: 23-6968

Filed Date: 12/27/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/28/2023