United States v. Maurice Geter

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States v. Maurice Geter

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6405 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6405

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MAURICE DARNELL GETER, a/k/a Rease,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:16-cr-00314-MGL-1; 3:18-cv-01388-MGL)

Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 28, 2025

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Darnell Geter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6405 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Darnell Geter seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his

motions to reduce his sentence and for a certificate of appealability as a

28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion and dismissing it as successive and unauthorized. 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, as here, 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 Geter 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Unpublished