UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6174
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID FRANCIS CLARK, a/k/a PREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:19-cr-00152-CCE-1; 1:19-cv-01266-
CCE-JLW)
Submitted: October 5, 2021 Decided: October 14, 2021
Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Francis Clark, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Francis Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Clark’s 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 Clark has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant Clark’s motions to exceed the page
limitations for his filings and to amend his motion for judicial notice, deny Clark’s motion
for a certificate of appealability and his remaining motions, 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