United States v. Demetrius Telfair ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-6987
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DEMETRIUS MONTEL TELFAIR,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:11-cr-00108-FL-1; 4:16-cv-00098-
    FL)
    Submitted: November 4, 2020                                 Decided: November 17, 2020
    Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Demetrius Montel Telfair, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Demetrius Montel Telfair seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying 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 Telfair 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: 20-6987

Filed Date: 11/17/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/17/2020