UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6597

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MAURICE SPRIGGS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00361-ELH-1; 1:16-cv-02643-ELH)

Submitted: October 2, 2020 Decided: October 8, 2020

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Spriggs, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Maurice Spriggs seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

motion. The order is 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 showing 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 Spriggs 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