USCA4 Appeal: 23-6343 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6343

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT MICHAEL JUNKINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:18-cr-00030-JPB-MJA-1; 2:22-cv-00008- JPB-MJA)

Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: September 27, 2024

Before KING, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Michael Junkins, Appellant Pro Se. Brandon Scott Flower, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6343 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Michael Junkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(B). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.”

(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,

(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,

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Junkins has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Junkins’s motion for 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