United States v. Gregory Whisonant
United States v. Gregory Whisonant
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6707
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY WHISONANT, a/k/a Geez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00191-ELH-1; 1:19-cv-02002-ELH)
Submitted: October 22, 2020 Decided: October 27, 2020
Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Whisonant, Appellant Pro Se. Brandon Keith Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Gregory Whisonant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion. 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 Whisonant has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Whisonant’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
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished