United States v. Michael Clark

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States v. Michael Clark

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6018 Doc: 16 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL DEWAYNE CLARK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00017-MR-WCM-1; 1:22-cv-00216-MR)

Submitted: July 31, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Dewayne Clark, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6018 Doc: 16 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Dewayne Clark 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). This Court will not

issue a certificate of appealability 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 Clark 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Unpublished