United States v. Tonto Edwards ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6861
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TONTO EDWARDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-01364-RBH-1; 4:16-cv-01731-RBH)
Submitted: September 26, 2019 Decided: October 1, 2019
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tonto Edwards, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tonto Edwards, a federal inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief
on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or
wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Edwards has not
made the requisite showing. See United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 266 (4th Cir. 2019)
(concluding “that Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a crime of violence” under the force
provision in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) (2012)). 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