United States v. Andrew Rushing ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-6048
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ANDREW TROY RUSHING,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
    at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cr-00062-MOC-DSC-1; 3:19-
    cv-00598-MOC)
    Submitted: June 24, 2021                                          Decided: June 29, 2021
    Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Andrew Troy Rushing, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Andrew Troy Rushing seeks 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 have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rushing 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-6048

Filed Date: 6/29/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/29/2021