USCA4 Appeal: 23-6096 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6096

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee v. KRISTOPHER OWEN DANIELS Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:14-cr-00105-FL-1; 7:19-cv-00015- FL)

Submitted: May 19, 2023 Decided: May 24, 2023

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kristopher Owen Daniels, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6096 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Kristopher Owen Daniels seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Daniels’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the denial of 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 Daniels has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Daniels’ motion for bail or release pending appeal, 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