Opinion
20-6724
07-20-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DESHAWN MARCUS KING, Defendant-Appellant.
Deshawn Marcus King, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: July 8, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00296-BO-2; 5:17-cv-00039-BO)
Deshawn Marcus King, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Deshawn Marcus King see ks to appeal the district court's 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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 previously remanded this case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether King's notice of appeal was timely filed under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). The district court concluded that King timely filed a notice of appeal.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that King has not made the requisite showing. 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.