USCA4 Appeal: 24-6795 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6795

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CALEB MALIK BATCHELOR, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00541-D-1; 5:23-cv-00627-D)

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

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Caleb Malik Batchelor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6795 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Caleb Malik Batchelor 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 Batchelor has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697, 702 (4th Cir. 2024) (holding that New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), does not “abrogate[] this Court’s precedent foreclosing as-applied challenges to Section 922(g)(1) and those decisions thus remain binding”).

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6795 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

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