USCA4 Appeal: 21-7026 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/13/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7026

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KELVIN MELTON, a/k/a Dizzy, a/k/a Old Man, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00072-D-1; 5:20-cv-00233-D)

Submitted: December 21, 2022 Decided: January 13, 2023

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin Melton, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7026 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/13/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Kelvin Melton seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part 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 Melton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We grant Melton’s motion for leave to file a supplemental informal brief but deny his motion for appointment of counsel. 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