USCA4 Appeal: 22-6683 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/30/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6683

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NIKITA RAY COLEMAN, a/k/a Heavy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:19-cr-00017-D-1; 4:21-cv-00142-D)

Submitted: November 18, 2022 Decided: November 30, 2022

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nikita Ray Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6683 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/30/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Nikita Ray Coleman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his

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)).

Here, the district court summarily adopted the reasoning in the Government’s

memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss, offering no independent explanation for

dismissing Coleman’s § 2255 motion. Although the district court should have enumerated

the issues Coleman raised and explained its reasons for denying relief, see United States v.

Marr,

(10th Cir. 1988), we are able to conclude through our

independent review of the record that Coleman has not made the requisite showing for a

certificate of appealability. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6683 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/30/2022 Pg: 3 of 3

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

3