UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6792

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NATHANIEL HILLIARD,

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-2; 1:19-cv-02326-ELH)

Submitted: November 19, 2020 Decided: November 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KING, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Hilliard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Nathaniel Hilliard 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.

(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 Hilliard has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hilliard’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