United States v. Charles Ledford

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6015 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES MICHAEL LEDFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cr-00060-MR-WCM-3;
1:21-cv-00233-MR)
Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: May 23, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Michael Ledford, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6015 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Charles Michael Ledford seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as
without merit his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) motion for relief from the district court’s prior
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 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).
See generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015).
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 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 Ledford has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ledford’s 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