United States v. Edward McCain
United States v. Edward McCain
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7018 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDWARD MCCAIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:09-cr-00296-DCN-2; 2:21-cv-01777- DCN)
Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 6, 2024
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward McCain, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7018 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Edward McCain seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion. 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 McCain has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his 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
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished