United States v. John Bryan, III

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 20-6103


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

JOHN ROMA BRYAN, III,

                    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-00015-JPJ-6; 2:17-cv-81260-JPJ)


Submitted: November 13, 2020                                Decided: November 23, 2020


Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Roma Bryan, III, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Mitchell Huber, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       John Roma Bryan, III, 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 Bryan 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




                                              2