USCA4 Appeal: 21-6714 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/18/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6714

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RONNIE DOUGLAS BURR, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00362-CCE-1; 1:17-cv-01032- CCE-LPA)

Submitted: November 15, 2022 Decided: November 18, 2022

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Douglas Burr, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6714 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/18/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Douglas Burr, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Burr’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 Burr 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