USCA4 Appeal: 22-6079 Doc: 17 Filed: 07/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6079

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROGER KEITH LUNSFORD, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00190-NCT-1; 1:17- cv-00124-NCT-JLW)

Submitted: July 21, 2022 Decided: July 26, 2022

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Keith Lunsford, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6079 Doc: 17 Filed: 07/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Roger Keith Lunsford seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; his Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) motion to amend; and his motion to preserve evidence. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). See generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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 Lunsford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Lunsford’s motion to file an appendix, 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