United States v. Kelvin Melton

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7026 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/13/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7026
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KELVIN MELTON, a/k/a Dizzy, a/k/a Old Man,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00072-D-1; 5:20-cv-00233-D)
Submitted: December 21, 2022 Decided: January 13, 2023
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kelvin Melton, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7026 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/13/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin Melton seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting in part and denying
in part 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, 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 Melton has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We grant Melton’s motion for leave to file a supplemental informal brief but deny
his motion for appointment of counsel. 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