USCA4 Appeal: 24-6220 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6220

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. REGINALD DAUSHAWN EARL TATE, a/k/a Shawn, a/k/a Booman, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cr-00074-MOC-SCR-1; 3:24-cv- 00035-MOC-SCR-1)

Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 2, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Daushawn Earl Tate, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6220 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Reginald Daushawn Earl Tate 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, 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 Tate 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