Opinion
No. 19-7437
06-22-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAQUAN OCTAVOUS DRAPER, Defendant - Appellant.
Laquan Octavous Draper, Appellant Pro Se. Aidan Taft Grano, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:12-cr-00090-RGD-DEM-1; 2:16-cv-00303-RGD) Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Laquan Octavous Draper, Appellant Pro Se. Aidan Taft Grano, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Laquan Octavous Draper seeks to appeal the district court's order 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. See 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 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 Draper has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Draper's motions for abeyance, to file a supplemental brief, and for appointment of counsel, and we 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.
We decline to address Draper's argument regarding the impact of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), on his conviction because it is being raised for the first time on appeal. See Pornomo v. United States, 814 F.3d 681, 686 (4th Cir. 2016). --------
DISMISSED