United States v. Cameron McManus

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6817 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6817
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CAMERON JAMAL MCMANUS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (3:20-cr-00221-KDB-DCK-3, 3:22-cv-00250-
KDB)
Submitted: November 2, 2022 Decided: July 21, 2023
Before GREGORY, WYNN, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cameron Jamal McManus, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6817 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Cameron Jamal McManus seeks to appeal the district court’s 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. 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 McManus 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