DocketNumber: 19-6748
Filed Date: 8/27/2019
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/27/2019
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6748 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LACEY LEROY MCCLAM, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:07-cr-01277-TLW-1; 4:16-cv- 02291-TLW) Submitted: August 22, 2019 Decided: August 27, 2019 Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lacey Leroy McClam, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lacey Leroy McClam, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.28 U.S.C. § 2253
(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel,529 U.S. 473
, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,537 U.S. 322
, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack,529 U.S. at 484-85
. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McClam 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