United States v. Roger Lunsford ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6596
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROGER KEITH LUNSFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00190-NCT-1; 1:17-
cv-00124-NCT-JLW)
Submitted: May 27, 2021 Decided: June 10, 2021
Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roger Keith Lunsford, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roger Keith Lunsford seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Lunsford’s 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 have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lunsford has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
Lunsford’s motion to remand, 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
2