United States of America v. Adrian Porterfield

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6026

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ADRIAN PORTERFIELD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cr-00003-CMC-1;
3:19-cv-01671-CMC )

Submitted: May 21, 2020 Decided: May 27, 2020

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian Porterfield, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Michelle Stoughton, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Adrian Porterfield 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 Porterfield 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