DocketNumber: 19-7571
Filed Date: 2/25/2020
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 2/25/2020
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7571 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PERRY RASHAWN WILKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (4:11-cr-00025-BR-2; 4:16-cv-00091- BR) Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: February 25, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Perry Rashawn Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Perry Rashawn Wilkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See28 U.S.C. § 2253
(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 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 Wilkins 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