Opinion
No. 20-6664 No. 20-6775
09-25-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ARANDER MATTHEW HUGHES, JR., a/k/a Randy Hughes, Defendant - Appellant.
Arander Matthew Hughes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:98-cr-00155-MR-1; 1:16-cv-00219-MR) Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arander Matthew Hughes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Arander Matthew Hughes, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). See generally 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 Hughes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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