United States v. Andrew Hargett, Jr.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States v. Andrew Hargett, Jr.

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7030 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7030

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANDREW HARGETT, JR., a/k/a Moneybun,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Bernard A. Friedman, Senior District Judge. (5:15-cr-00374-D-1; 5:20-cv- 00323-D)

Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 27, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Hargett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7030 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Hargett, Jr., 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 Hargett 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Unpublished