UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7003
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GERARD ONEIL WELLS, a/k/a J,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:08-cr-00608-JFA-2; 0:19-cv-
01950-JFA)
Submitted: May 6, 2021 Decided: July 7, 2021
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gerard Oneil Wells, Appellant Pro Se. John C. Potterfield, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gerard Oneil Wells 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 showing 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 Wells 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