United States v. Keith Tutt
United States v. Keith Tutt
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7626
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEITH LAMONT TUTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:17-cr-00142-D-1; 5:19-cv-00435-D)
Submitted: March 18, 2021 Decided: March 23, 2021
Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keith Lamont Tutt, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Keith Lamont Tutt seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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 Tutt 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
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished