USCA4 Appeal: 24-6926 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6926

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

QUIONTE CRAWFORD, a/k/a Kayla Stevens, a/k/a Quionte Jordan Crawford,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cr-00035-TSK-MJA-1; 1:21- cv-00114-TSK)

Submitted: July 8, 2025 Decided: December 2, 2025

Before NIEMEYER, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linn Richard Walker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. David J. Perri, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6926 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Quionte Crawford seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Crawford’s

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).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Crawford has not

made the requisite showing. We further discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s

decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing on Crawford’s claims. See United States v.

Morris,

(4th Cir. 2019) (noting standard of review); see also United

States v. McNeil,

(4th Cir. 2025) (explaining “that a district court

generally should dismiss, without an evidentiary hearing, a § 2255 [motion] that

necessarily relies on allegations that contradict . . . sworn statements” movant made during

a Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 hearing (citation modified)).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6926 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/02/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3