United States v. Bruce Talley ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-7564
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    BRUCE DARNELL TALLEY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00296-BO-1; 5:16-cv-00304-
    BO)
    Submitted: April 16, 2020                                         Decided: April 20, 2020
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Bruce Darnell Talley, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Bruce Darnell Talley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2018) 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) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief
    on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
    would 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 Talley 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: 19-7564

Filed Date: 4/20/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/20/2020