Filed: Feb. 25, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 25, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7569 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY JAMES BURGESS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00099-BO-2; 5:16-cv-00479- BO) Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: February 25, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7569 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY JAMES BURGESS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00099-BO-2; 5:16-cv-00479- BO) Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: February 25, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7569
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY JAMES BURGESS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00099-BO-2; 5:16-cv-00479-
BO)
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory James Burgess, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory James Burgess seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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) (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 Burgess has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Burgess’
motion to appoint counsel, 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