UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6177
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALONZO GARDNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00228-FL-1; 5:14-cv-00511-FL)
Submitted: May 23, 2017 Decided: May 26, 2017
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alonzo Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Tobin Webb Lathan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alonzo Gardner seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation to deny relief on Gardner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district
court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gardner 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