United States of America v. ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RAINEY, a/k/a Craven

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7371

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RAINEY, a/k/a Craven,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big
Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (2:15-cr-00018-JPJ-4; 2:19-cv-81348-JPJ)

Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: April 20, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Franklin Samuel, GARLAND, SAMUEL & LOEB, Atlanta, Georgia, for
Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Robert Christopher Rainey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief
on 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 Rainey 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