United States of America v. Billy Wayne Gregory

17-7330Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 19, 2018

Full text

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7330
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BILLY WAYNE GREGORY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:15-cr-00263-RBH-5; 4:17-cv-00202-
RBH)
Submitted: April 17, 2018 Decided: April 19, 2018
Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Billy Wayne Gregory, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Billy Wayne Gregory 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 Gregory has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gregory’s motion for 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 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.