United States v. Delano McPherson
United States v. Delano McPherson
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6774
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DELANO RAMON MCPHERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:15-cr-00770-RMG-1; 2:20-cv- 00242-RMG)
Submitted: October 19, 2021 Decided: October 22, 2021
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Delano Ramon McPherson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Delano Ramon McPherson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief
on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion. 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 McPherson 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- Unpublished