United States v. Kenneth Artis ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-7494
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    KENNETH FUQUAN ARTIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:11-cr-00050-H-1; 4:16-cv-
    00170-H)
    Submitted: April 23, 2020                                         Decided: April 29, 2020
    Before WYNN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kenneth Fuquan Artis, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kenneth Fuquan Artis 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
    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 Artis 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: 19-7494

Filed Date: 4/29/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/29/2020