United States v. David Gray

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID FURTADO GRAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:95-cr-00364-CCB-1; 1:16-cv-02259-CCB)
Submitted: August 20, 2020 Decided: August 25, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Furtado Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Furtado Gray seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
motion asserting a clerical error or fraud in the denial of 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 Gray 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