Opinion
21-6282
10-03-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAYMOND BULLETTE, III, a/k/a Scrap, Defendant-Appellant.
Raymond Bullette, III, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth G. Wright, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: September 16, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cr-00525-DKC-3; 8:17-cv-03284-RWT)
Raymond Bullette, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Elizabeth G. Wright, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Raymond Bullette, III, seeks to appeal the district court's renewed order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to vacate the court's prior 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); see United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 &n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Bullette has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Bullette's motion for leave to file supplemental informal briefs, 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.
[*] We previously vacated the district court's order denying this Rule 60(b) motion and remanded so that Bullette could "elect between deleting his successive § 2255 claims or having his entire motion treated as a successive § 2255 motion." United States v. Bullette, 816 Fed.Appx. 880, 880 (4th Cir. 2020) (No. 19-6086). Bullette elected to delete his successive § 2255 claims.