United States of America v. TROY HENLEY, a/k/a Chubbs, a/k/a Bill Bill

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6300

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TROY HENLEY, a/k/a Chubbs, a/k/a Bill Bill,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr -00046-JKB-1; 1:16-cv -01310-JKB)

Submitted: August 20, 2020 Decided: August 25, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Henley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Troy Henley 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 Henley has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Henley’s motion to appoint counsel, 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