USCA4 Appeal: 22-6270 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6270

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES STEPHEN THORPE, a/k/a J1, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:16-cr-00074-D-1; 5:21-cv-00275-D)

Submitted: July 26, 2022 Decided: July 29, 2022

Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Stephen Thorpe, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6270 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: James Stephen Thorpe seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is 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 Thorpe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, while we grant Thorpe’s motion to amend his motion for a certificate of appealability, we deny his 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