Opinion
No. 19-6993
09-17-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES MILLARD REYNOLDS, a/k/a Jamie Reynolds, Defendant - Appellant.
James Millard Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Cagle Juhan, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00035-JPJ-PMS-1; 1:03-cr-00116-JPJ-PMS-2; 1:19-cv-81373-JPJ) Before AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Millard Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Cagle Juhan, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
James Millard Reynolds seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reynolds 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