Devon Gayles v. State of North Carolina ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6740 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6740
DEVON ARMOND GAYLES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Department of Public Safety,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:23-cv-00105-MR)
Submitted: December 19, 2023 Decided: December 27, 2023
Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Devon Armond Gayles, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6740 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Devon Armond Gayles seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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 petition 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 Gayles has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gayles’ 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