United States v. Leandre Budden ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6406 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6406
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEANDRE BUDDEN, a/k/a Bubba,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-cr-00769-JFA-1; 3:18-cv-
02239-JFA)
Submitted: May 23, 2023 Decided: June 28, 2023
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leandre Budden, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6406 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Leandre Budden seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The orders are 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, 580 U.S.
100, 115-17 (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 Budden has not made
the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We also deny as unnecessary Budden’s Motion to Suspend Rules as to Color Codes
of Briefs and/or Page Limitations. 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
*
We decline to consider Budden’s challenges to his conviction and sentence that he
raises for the first time on appeal. See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014).
2