UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6208

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARL A. EUBANKS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:97-cr-00110-DCN-1; 2:16-cv-01400- DCN)

Submitted: September 25, 2020 Decided: October 7, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ann Briks Walsh, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, Jeremy A. Thompson, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Carl A. Eubanks seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his

motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(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,

(2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Eubanks 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