Opinion
No. 19-6610
06-04-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AARON COPPEDGE, Defendant - Appellant.
Aaron Coppedge, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:09-cr-00064-FL-1; 4:15-cv-00009-FL) Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron Coppedge, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Aaron Coppedge seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is 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 Coppedge has not made the requisite showing. As to some of his claims, Coppedge waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Further, the claims raised for the first time on appeal are not properly before us. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 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