UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6174

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID FRANCIS CLARK, a/k/a PREZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:19-cr-00152-CCE-1; 1:19-cv-01266- CCE-JLW)

Submitted: October 5, 2021 Decided: October 14, 2021

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Francis Clark, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

David Francis Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Clark’s

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 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 Clark has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant Clark’s motions to exceed the page

limitations for his filings and to amend his motion for judicial notice, deny Clark’s motion

for a certificate of appealability and his remaining motions, 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