UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7142
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM ELDRIDGE ASKEW, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00023-D-2; 5:18-cv-00232-D)
Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Eldridge Askew, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Eldridge Askew, 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 Askew has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion to appoint counsel, 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