United States of America v. Larry Antonio Burleigh

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6052

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LARRY ANTONIO BURLEIGH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cr-00049-HEH-2; 3:16-cv-
00525-HEH)

Submitted: May 11, 2020 Decided: May 18, 2020

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Antonio Burleigh, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Larry Antonio Burleigh seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The
orders are 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 Burleigh 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