UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6610
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AARON COPPEDGE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:09-cr-00064-FL-1; 4:15-cv-00009-
FL)
Submitted: May 27, 2020 Decided: June 4, 2020
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aaron Coppedge, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Coppedge seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. 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 that the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims is 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 Coppedge has not
made the requisite showing. As to some of his claims, Coppedge waived appellate review
by failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
Further, the claims raised for the first time on appeal are not properly before us. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). 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
2